SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative safety profiles of first-line immunotherapy regimens in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis focusing on toxicity stratification.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The combination of immune checkpoint blockade and chemotherapy significantly improves survival when used as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Nonetheless, the safety profiles of various immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies remain inadequately characterized, particularly regarding the incidence of severe adverse events (AEs) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The research employed a network meta-analysis to systematically evaluate and contrast the toxicity profiles across various initial ICI-driven treatments for advanced Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: An extensive literature review was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify RCTs evaluating first-line immunotherapy in advanced ESCC. The search included all records from each database's inception to July 1, 2025. Primary endpoints included grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events(grade ≥3 trAEs), any-grade irAEs, and grade ≥3 irAEs. Secondary analyses focused on organ-specific irAEs, including immune-mediated rash, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and pneumonitis. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess relative risks (RRs) and establish a treatment ranking based on Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) metrics, evaluating the comparative effectiveness of different therapeutic options. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251113069). Results: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 4,479 patients with advanced ESCC were included. In pairwise meta-analyses, ICI plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, increased the risk of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.17), any-grade irAEs (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.71-2.44), and grade ≥3 irAEs (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.98-3.82). Immune-chemotherapy also significantly elevated the risks of immune-mediated rash, hypothyroidism, and hyperthyroidism, whereas the increase in immune-mediated pneumonitis did not reach statistical significance. In Bayesian network meta-analyses, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy had the highest probability of being the regimen with the lowest risk of grade ≥3 trAEs(SCURA = 87.8%) and grade ≥3 irAEs(SCURA = 71.6%), while toripalimab plus chemotherapy ranked safest for any-grade irAEs(SCURA = 83.8%). Conclusions: First-line ICI-based regimens for advanced ESCC are associated with an increased risk of severe treatment-related and immune-related toxicities compared with chemotherapy alone, and their safety profiles differ substantially across regimens. Our SUCRA-based rankings provide a comparative overview of regimen-level toxicity that may assist clinicians in understanding relative safety trade-offs when selecting first-line therapy. These findings should be integrated with regimen-specific efficacy data, regulatory indications, PD-L1 status, comorbidities, and patient preferences, and are best interpreted as complementary safety evidence rather than stand-alone treatment recommendations. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#myprospero, identifier CRD420251113069.
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.