MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312118540 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.1041233

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma: A pooled analysis of prospective clinical trials

2022· article· en· W4312118540 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jie Zhu, Xuefeng Leng, Binyang Gao, Bo Wang, Hanlin Zhang, Lei Wu, Jiabao Ma, Yan Tan, Lin Peng, Yongtao Han, Qifeng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineEsophagectomyNeoadjuvant therapyOncologyAdenocarcinomaClinical endpointEsophageal cancerCarcinomaGastroenterologyImmunotherapyAdverse effectClinical trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) plus radical esophagectomy is currently the standard treatment for resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) carcinoma. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable esophageal or GEJ carcinoma. Prospective clinical trials investigating efficacy and/or safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) followed by radical esophagectomy in patients with newly diagnosed resectable esophageal or GEJ carcinoma were identified through literature search. Quality assessment was performed by using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Preliminary treatment outcomes of pathologically complete response (pCR, ypT0N0) and grade 3-4 adverse effects (AEs) were pooled together and then compared with standard NCRT of the historical control CROSS study by Chi-square (χ2) test. A two-sided P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 17 eligible non-randomized trials with 455 participants were included into analysis. The most common primary endpoint was pCR (n = 7, 41%), and the median sample size and follow-up period was 23 patients and 7.9 months, respectively. For patients receiving neoadjuvant immunotherapy, the overall pCR, R0 resection, and grade 3-4 AE rates were 33.2%, 95.5%, and 35.1%, respectively. For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and adenocarcinoma (EAC), neoadjuvant immunochemoradiotherapy showed no significant improvement in pCR rate than NCRT (ESCC, 50% vs 48.7%, P = 0.9; EAC, 32.6% vs 23.1%, P = 0.22). Grade 3-4 AEs were the most common in patients with neoadjuvant immunochemoradiotherapy, significantly higher than immunochemotherapy (46.7% vs 32.8%, P = 0.04) and NCRT (46.7% vs 18.1%, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, for patients with resectable esophageal or GEJ carcinoma, the addition of ICIs to standard NCRT could not improve pCR rate in both ESCC and EAC, but significantly increased the risk of severe AEs. Large-scale phase 3 randomized trials were urgently needed to further confirm the survival benefit and safety profile of neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.027
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207