ArticleBMC cancer2026
Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
backgroundNeoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NCIT) has shown promising activity in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but comparative evidence against neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) alone remains limited. This study aimed to compare the pathological response and perioperative safety of NCIT versus NCT in patients with locally advanced ESCC.
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study included 199 patients with locally advanced ESCC who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy between 2017 and 2023. Among them, 131 patients received NCIT and 68 received NCT alone. Pathological response was assessed using major pathological response (MPR), pathological complete response (pCR), and tumor regression grade (TRG). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and postoperative outcomes, including 30-day and 90-day mortality, were evaluated. To reduce confounding from baseline imbalance, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed as the primary adjusted analysis.
resultsIn the overall cohort, MPR was achieved in 51 of 131 patients in the NCIT group and 17 of 68 patients in the NCT group (38.93% vs. 25.00%; absolute risk difference [ARD], + 13.93%; 95% CI, + 0.02% to + 26.18%; odds ratio [OR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.00-3.67; P = 0.049). The distribution of TRG also favored NCIT (P = 0.015). After 1:1 propensity score matching, 67 matched pairs were analyzed, and the NCIT group continued to show a higher MPR rate than the NCT group (44.78% vs. 25.37%; ARD, + 19.40%; 95% CI, + 3.24% to + 34.23%; OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.15-4.96; P = 0.019). The pCR rate was numerically higher in the NCIT group but did not reach statistical significance. Treatment-related adverse events were comparable between the two groups (80.2% vs. 83.8%; P = 0.528). No deaths occurred within 30 days, whereas one death occurred within 90 days in each group.
conclusionNCIT was associated with improved major pathological response compared with NCT alone in patients with locally advanced ESCC, while maintaining comparable treatment-related toxicity and short-term postoperative safety. These findings support NCIT as a promising neoadjuvant strategy for locally advanced ESCC and provide a rationale for further prospective validation.
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.