SynthesisInternational journal of cancer2026
Immunotherapy in advanced gastroesophageal cancers: A meta-analysis of sex-based outcomes in overall survival.
Synthesis in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tertiary lymphoid structures in gastrointestinal cancer: orchestrating tumour microenvironmental immune subcycles to elegantly amplify the cancer immunity cycle.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Sex-based survival differences in patients with untreated advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Immune-checkpoint-inhibition (ICI) represents the mainstay for treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) in most cases. Sex differences in innate and adaptive immune responses are known to reflect distinct anti-tumor efficacy of ICI in female and male patients. However, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ICI in GEC were conducted without taking sex differences into account. To address this uncertainty, we conducted a meta-analysis across first-line (1L) RCTs in advanced GEC. Systematic research was performed up to March 31, 2025. The primary endpoint was the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) in male and female patients, comparing ICI-based therapy versus control. The secondary objective was to assess the interaction between sex and treatment effect. A total of 15 RCTs were included (7 trials on ESCC and 8 trials on GEA). In male ESCC patients, the pooled HR for OS favored ICI with statistical significance (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.65-0.76, P < .00001). In women, HR was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.61-1.07, P = .14). In GEA, ICI- based therapy showed significant survival benefits in both men (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.73-0.83, P < .00001) and women (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.75-0.90, P < .0001). The test for interaction between sexes and treatment effect indicated no significant difference in ICI efficacy between sexes in ESCC (Chi
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.