ArticleThoracic cancer2025
Efficacy and Safety of Second-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge in Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advancing immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge: key insights into efficacy, safety, and personalized strategies in advanced solid tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing immunotherapy re-challenge plus chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after first-line immunotherapy failure.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Outcomes and Safety of PD-1 Blockades Plus Anlotinib Regimen in Previously-Treated Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective, Exploratory Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Second-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge in Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has reshaped the treatment landscape of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). But most patients end up with disease progression and/or therapeutic intolerance. The subsequent ICI rechallenge raises some discussions.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of reintroduction of ICI in patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC after first-line ICI failure. Outcomes included median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Subgroup analysis and prognostic analysis were also performed.
resultsA total of 1320 patients were screened and 138 were enrolled: 109 received second-line ICI-based therapies, and 29 received non-ICI therapies. As of data cutoff on November 30, 2024, patients with ICI rechallenge, compared with non-ICI rechallenge, achieved an improved second-line OS (10.4 vs. 5.8 months; HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33-0.84; p = 0.006) and showed a favorable PFS trend (5.0 vs. 3.0 months; HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48-1.17; p = 0.202). The 6-month PFS rate was 42.9% versus 22.3%, and the 12-month OS rate was 41.5% versus 23.2%, respectively. The ORR was 30.3% versus13.8% and the DCR was 79.8% versus 58.6%, respectively. ICI combined with chemoradiotherapy was the most popular option for subsequent ICI rechallenge, with an OS of 11.2 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 47 (43.1%) and 11 (37.9%) patients in the two groups.
conclusionSecond-line ICI rechallenge provided OS benefits in advanced or metastatic ESCC, with manageable safety. Further prospective study is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.