ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
A meta-analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally resectable esophageal cancer based on RCTs.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For locally resectable esophageal cancer, the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) remains controversial. Therefore, this study explores the efficacy difference between NCT and NCRT in locally resectable esophageal cancer (including gastroesophageal junction cancer). Methods: This study adhered to the guidelines of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO with the registration number CRD420251044577. Four electronic databases-PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov-were searched from their inception to May 2025. The primary outcomes of this study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), which were presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was uniformly used for the pooled analysis and leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were conducted. Results: After searching and screening, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were finally included, involving 886 patients in the experimental group (NCT group) and 877 patients in the control group (NCRT group). The results of statistical analysis show no statistically significant difference in OS (HR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.85-1.31; p=0.603, I²=59.53%, τ²=0.0411) and PFS (HR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.79-1.40; p=0.718, I²=76.38%, τ²=0.0892) between NCT and NCRT. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the results remain stable when each study is excluded one by one, and no publication bias is detected using Begg's test. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that in the perioperative management of locally resectable esophageal cancer (including gastroesophageal junction cancer), existing data do not yet demonstrate a significant survival advantage for NCRT over NCT. Individualized decision-making is therefore recommended.
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.