ArticleiScience2026
Efficacy among neoadjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in iScience, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For resectable esophageal cancer (EC), neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgery remains the standard pipeline. Controversy persists regarding optimal neoadjuvant regimens, especially among established standards including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), and emerging neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT). To address this, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and conferences were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until June 2025. Bayesian network meta-analyses and pairwise comparisons were performed to compare the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) by reporting the odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). As a result, 36 RCTs with 7,459 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with nCT, nCRT exhibited significant superiority in terms of pCR rates (OR = 7.03, 95% CrI: 4.17-15.05), OS (HR = 0.78, 95% CrI: 0.69-0.88), and PFS (HR = 0.83, 95% CrI: 0.72-0.95). nICT also showed predominant advantages over nCT in achieving pCR (OR: 4.96, 95% CrI: 2.44-10.50). No significant difference in pCR was observed between nCRT and nICT (OR = 1.43, 95% CrI: 0.65-3.72). Subgroup analyses confirmed these robust benefits primarily in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. However, due to sparse nICT data in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), this subgroup derived benefit exclusively from nCRT versus nCT in terms of pCR (OR = 5.72, 95% CI: 2.17-15.09), without significant OS or PFS improvements. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the panoramic advantages of nCRT over nCT in EC across critical endpoints. Furthermore, nICT exhibits pCR rates comparable to those of nCRT, which establishes it as a potential alternative for ESCC, pending mature survival data.
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.