ArticleMedComm2026
Advocating for Precision Neoadjuvant and Subsequent Adjuvant Therapies in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Evidence From a Real-World Multicenter Study.
Article in MedComm, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Controversies persist regarding the optimal regimens of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This real-world cohort study aimed to compare the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), and chemoimmunotherapy (NCIT), and to clarify the survival contributions of adjuvant strategies. We retrospectively enrolled 1818 ESCC patients across four high-volume Chinese medical centers. After propensity score matching, pathological tumor response and tumor downstaging followed the hierarchy NCRT > NCIT > NCT, yet no significant differences were detected in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analyses revealed superior OS benefits of NCIT in never‑smokers, nondrinkers, and patients with clinical N2-3 disease compared with NCT. While NCRT showed greater PFS benefit than NCIT as clinical T stage advanced, its OS advantage was restricted to obese individuals. Adjuvant immunotherapy extended PFS for patients receiving prior NCIT, whereas adjuvant chemotherapy delivered survival benefits to those with pathological lymph node metastasis. We constructed optimal treatment rule (OTR) decision trees with moderate-to-good predictive capacity to guide selection of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies based on survival benefit. These results highlight the necessity of precision perioperative therapy for ESCC. The established OTR decision trees can support individualized clinical decision-making.
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.