ArticleESMO gastrointestinal oncology2026
Tumor response to neoadjuvant treatment as a predictor of benefit for adjuvant treatment in esophago-gastric cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in ESMO gastrointestinal 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is unclear which patients will benefit most from adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma after systemic neoadjuvant treatment and resection. This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, based on pathologically documented response (pathological response) to the same neoadjuvant regimen. Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Relevant articles were acquired from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2000 to 2025. Patients were trichotomized into minimal, partial, and complete pathological responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on resection histology. A meta-analysis of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) comparing patients who did and did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy was carried out. Results: Eleven studies were included in this systematic review, and five were meta-analyzed, totaling 6600 and 4688 patients, respectively. For partial responders, adjuvant chemotherapy conferred a significant RFS [pooled hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.87] and OS (pooled HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.77) benefit. Conversely, for complete responders, adjuvant chemotherapy did not confer an RFS (pooled HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19-1.73) or OS (pooled HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32-3.08) benefit. In minimal responders, adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with an RFS [pooled HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28-1.48] or OS (pooled HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49-1.05) benefit. Studies that were not eligible for meta-analysis were described qualitatively. Conclusion: Pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy may help stratify oncological benefit from subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy, potentially supporting more personalized adjuvant treatment decisions in esophago-gastric cancer.
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.