MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DataSheet_1_Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma: A pooled analysis of prospective clinical trials.docx

2022· dataset· en· W6908696637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhysics and Engineering Research Articles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsophagectomyNeoadjuvant therapyEsophageal cancerAdenocarcinomaImmunotherapyClinical endpointEsophagusAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>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 (χ<sup>2</sup>) 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.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPhysics and Engineering Research ArticlesFrench-language works237,207