ArticleDiscover oncology2025
A meta-analysis based on propensity analysis studies comparing neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Discover oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NICT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) in the treatment of resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
methodsDatabases were searched to collect clinical studies comparing NICT and NCRT for ESCC based on propensity score analysis. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), pathological response rate, local recurrence and distant relapse rate. Secondary outcomes included the number of lymph nodes dissected, R0 resection rate, and postoperative complication rates.
results11 studies involving 4,684 patients were included. The NICT group showed significantly better OS and DFS than the NCRT group (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.52-0.72; HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.72). The pathological complete response (pCR) rate and major pathological response (MPR) rate were lower in the NICT group (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.81; RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65-0.86). However, there was no significant difference in the local recurrence rate between NICT and NCRT group (RR = 0.93, 95%CI 0.51-1.72, I
conclusionsNICT demonstrated superior survival benefits compared to NCRT in the treatment of ESCC, despite its lower pCR and MPR rate. The safety of the two treatment methods were comparable.
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.