SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Induction immunochemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves survival in unresectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) remains the standard treatment for unresectable esophageal cancer (EC). However, the clinical benefits of combining immunotherapy with CCRT for unresectable EC remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the potential benefits of different immunotherapy strategies added to CCRT in patients with unresectable EC. Methods: We employed single-arm, pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) methods to analyze the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety of several combined treatment strategies based on CCRT. Results: 30 single-arm trials and 39 controlled trials involving a total of 9648 participants were included. Compared with CCRT alone, both induction immunochemotherapy plus CCRT (ICT-CCRT) and CCRT plus consolidation immunotherapy (CCRT-IO) significantly improved OS in pairwise meta-analyses (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.71, I²= 0.0%; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.90, I²= 0.0%, respectively). In the NMA, only ICT-CCRT showed a significant OS benefit (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88), whereas CCRT-IO did not. For PFS, CCRT-IO consistently prolonged PFS compared with CCRT alone in both pairwise meta-analyses (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.85, I²=0.0%) and NMA (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.99). In contrast, ICT-CCRT demonstrated a significant PFS benefit only in the NMA (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99), but not in the pairwise analysis. Notably, ICT-CCRT ranked first in the NMA for both OS and PFS. Conclusions: In conclusion, compared with CCRT alone, ICT-CCRT significantly improves OS and shows a potential PFS benefit. CCRT-IO improves OS only in pairwise analyses but consistently improves PFS across analyses. Currently, sufficient randomized controlled trials are lacking to validate the efficacy and determine the optimal timing and sequence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261364669.
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.