ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a real-world retrospective study.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains a significant global health burden. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for locally advanced ESCC, yet optimal strategies to enhance efficacy and reduce recurrence are still being explored. This study aimed to compare the real-world safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in patients with locally advanced ESCC.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 164 patients with stage II-IVA ESCC who received either nICT (n = 118) or nCT (n = 46) followed by radical esophagectomy at Tongji Hospital between January 2019 and April 2024. Clinical characteristics, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), radiological and pathological responses, postoperative complications, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsThe overall incidence of TRAEs was comparable between the nICT and nCT groups (87.3% vs. 86.9%, p > 0.05), with no treatment-related deaths. The nICT group demonstrated significantly higher rates of pathological complete response (pCR: 27.1% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.05) and major pathological response (MPR: 49.2% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.05) compared to the nCT group. Postoperative complication rates were similar across groups. At a median follow-up of 25.5 months, the nICT group showed superior DFS (HR = 1.696, 95% CI: 1.043-2.758, p = 0.016), while OS did not differ significantly (p = 0.064).
conclusionsNICT is a safe and effective approach for locally advanced ESCC, offering improved pathological response and DFS compared to chemotherapy alone. These findings support the integration of immunotherapy into neoadjuvant regimens for ESCC.
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.