ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradioimmunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in International journal of clinical 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComparative evidence for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NCIT) versus neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy (NICRT) in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is limited. We compared pathological response and survival outcomes between these two strategies.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed ESCC patients who received NCIT or NICRT followed by surgery between February 2019 and March 2025 at two centers. Pathological response, 2-year overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between groups. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to adjust for baseline imbalances.
resultsAmong 212 patients, 110 received NICRT and 102 received NCIT. After PSM, NICRT yielded higher rates of major pathological response (MPR) (77.3% vs. 41.3%; p < 0.001) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates (46.7% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.004) compared with the NCIT. Lymph node yield was significantly higher in the NCIT group than in the NICRT group. (median: 21 vs. 17; p = 0.008). Besides, the perioperative safety and recurrence patterns were comparable between groups. However, 2-year OS (82.6% vs. 87.3%) and DFS (71.4% vs.79.0%) did not differ significantly between NICRT and NCIT groups.
conclusionsNICRT achieved superior pathological responses but did not improve 2-year survival compared with NCIT. Perioperative safety and recurrence patterns were similar between regimens. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42277541What 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.