ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2026
Timing of immune checkpoint inhibitor infusion predicts survival in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a highly lethal malignancy for which immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes, yet significant inter-patient variability in response persists. Emerging evidence suggests that circadian rhythms modulate anti-tumor immunity, but the impact of ICI infusion timing on ESCC prognosis remains unexplored. Objective: To determine whether the timing of ICI infusion impacts survival outcomes in patients with advanced ESCC and to identify an optimal infusion time window. Design: A single-center, retrospective cohort study. Methods: We included 339 patients with advanced ESCC who received ICI therapy at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital between June 2018 and September 2022. Infusion timing was examined using two metrics: (i) first infusion time, and (ii) average infusion time across the first three cycles. Restricted cubic spline models were applied to explore dose-response relationships with infusion time as a continuous variable. Patients were categorized as early (before 14:00) or late (at or after 14:00) for each metric. Survival outcomes were analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier methods. Sensitivity analyses included an alternative 13:30 cutoff and a subgroup analysis of patients receiving ICI monotherapy. The study was conducted in compliance with the STROBE guidelines. Results: In the primary analysis of first infusion time, each one-hour delay was associated with increased risks of disease progression (HR=1.049, 95% CI: 1.003-1.097, P=0.036) and mortality (HR=1.062, 95% CI: 1.014-1.112, P=0.010). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly better median PFS (6.2 vs. 5.3 months, P=0.010) and OS (13.3 vs. 12.4 months, P=0.026) in the Early-first versus Late-first group. In the secondary analysis of average infusion time during the first three cycles, each one-hour delay increased progression risk (HR=1.073, 95% CI: 1.001-1.151, P=0.027) and mortality risk (HR=1.092, 95% CI: 1.017-1.172, P=0.015), with Kaplan-Meier analysis showing a trend toward improved median PFS (6.2 vs. 5.6 months, P=0.098) and OS (13.4 vs. 12.1 months, P=0.057) in the Early-3M versus Late-3M group. Restricted cubic spline analysis revealed a nearly linear dose-response relationship (nonlinearity P>0.05). Conclusion: The timing of ICIs infusions may be an independent prognostic factor for survival in advanced ESCC. Administration before 14:00 was associated with improved PFS and OS.
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.