SynthesisEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2026
Does chemotherapy regimen matter for first-line immunochemotherapy in low PD-L1-expressing esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? A systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anti-PD-1 therapy plus chemotherapy (immunochemotherapy) has become standard first-line treatment for high PD-L1-expressing advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Benefits of immunochemotherapy for low PD-L1-expressing ESCC remain debatable. The Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases were systemically searched from inception till 10 August 2024. Randomized trials comparing first-line immunochemotherapy with chemotherapy in ESCC were identified and evaluated association of platinum plus paclitaxel (TP) or fluoropyrimidine (PF) chemotherapy regimen, stratified by PD-L1 expression levels, with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits. Pooled study-level hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS and OS were calculated with a random-effects model. Eight studies involving 4733 participants were included. In high PD-L1 group, PFS (HR of TP: 0.56 [95% CI, 0.45-0.69] vs HR of PF: 0.53 [95% CI, 0.45-0.62]) and OS benefits (HR of TP: 0.60 [95% CI, 0.46-0.78] vs HR of PF: 0.59 [95% CI, 0.50-0.69]) did not significantly differ between two regimen subgroups (P = 0.75 and 0.90, respectively). In low PD-L1 group, TP regimen was associated with a significantly greater PFS benefit than PF regimen (HR of TP: 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48-0.74] vs HR of PF: 0.82 [95% CI, 0.72-0.94]; P = 0.01) and TP regimen trended to associate with greater OS benefit over PF regimen (HR of TP: 0.72 [95% CI, 0.55-0.93] vs HR of PF: 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72-0.97]; P = 0.32). In patients with low PD-L1-expressing advanced ESCC, immunochemotherapy with TP may confer a greater PFS benefit than that with PF.
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.