SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and real-world study.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy combination regimens in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and evaluate the pros and cons of different regimens and their impacts on survival by integrating network meta-analysis (NMA) and real world studies (RWS). ESCC accounts for approximately 90% of global esophageal cancer cases, with over half occurring in China. Although neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves prognosis, unmet clinical needs persist; the optimal neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen remains controversial. Current large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suffer from limited sample sizes and fail to adequately reflect the treatment realities of patients in the Chinese real-world setting. Methods: Systematic searches of databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI identified eligible RCTs and cohort studies for NMA. Concurrently, clinical data of 113 such ESCC patients who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy combination treatment followed by surgery at National Cancer Centre of China (January 2021-December 2023) were retrospectively collected, with logistic and Cox regression analyses used to assess associations between factors (e.g., MPR, radiotherapy) and survival. Result: NMA results showed Sintilimab plus chemoradiotherapy had the highest pathological complete response (pCR) rate, Camrelizumab plus nab-paclitaxel/platinum performed best in major pathological response (MPR) and radical resection with negative surgical margins (R0 resection) rates, and Sintilimab plus nab-paclitaxel/platinum had the lowest adverse event (AE) incidence. Real-world data revealed a significantly higher MPR rate in the Camrelizumab group than the Tislelizumab group (46.9% vs 12.5%, P = 0.0213). Multivariate analysis indicated MPR and primary tumor T response were independent protective factors for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while neoadjuvant radiotherapy correlated with poorer OS and PFS. Conclusion: Neoadjuvant immunotherapy combinations (notably Cam+nab-TP) exhibit favorable efficacy in this ESCC subtype, and MPR serves as a reliable surrogate endpoint for long-term survival. The survival benefit of radiotherapy requires careful assessment, and clinical decisions should balance efficacy and safety, as these findings provide evidence for individualized treatment. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251174359, identifier CRD420251174359.
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.