SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2025
Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with or without Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, there has been significant attention focused on neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy (NICT) for the treatment of resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In order to assess the efficacy and safety of this innovative combination in relation to traditional neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), we performed a systematic meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsA comprehensive review of the literature was performed across Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed, covering the period from their inception to May 2, 2025, to identify appropriate RCTs. The primary outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR) and major pathological response (MPR), R0 resection rate, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). The adverse events (AEs) was identified as the secondary outcome.
resultsA total of five RCTs involving 755 patients were included for the final analysis. The result showed that compared with the NCT group, the NICT group for resectable ESCC significantly improved pCR (RR = 2.51; 95% CI: 1.64-3.84; P < 0.01) and MPR (RR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.16-2.88; P = 0.01). The pooled rates of pMR and MPR in the NICT group were significantly higher compared to the NCT group, with values of 23.2% versus 7.7% and 42.8% versus 25.8%. The R0 resection rate was comparable between the two groups (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99-1.02; P = 0.63) with pooled rates observed to be 100% for the NICT group and 98.2% for the NCT group. However, only one phase III RCT reported survival outcomes that demonstrated improved 1-year EFS rate (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.39-1.00, P = 0.05) and 1-year OS rates (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24-0.97, P = 0.037) in the NICT group. Nevertheless, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in grade ≥ 3 TRAEs across the treatment strategies (RR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.80-1.32; P = 0.82), with pooled rates recorded at 34.4% for the NICT group and 33.1% for the NCT group. The pooled rates were observed to be 24.7% for all grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 3.1% for grade ≥ 3 irAEs.
conclusionsCombining ICIs with chemotherapy as a neoadjuvant approach shows significant therapeutic promise in treating resectable ESCC, exhibiting favorable efficacy and acceptable safety profiles in the Chinese population. Nonetheless, more additional large-scale phase III RCTs are warranted for further validation of these preliminary outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40788432What 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.