Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.

Sec. Gastroenterology

This article is part of the Research TopicAdvances in Esophageal Cancer: Treatment Updates and Future ChallengesView all 31 articles

Comparison of short-term outcomes of combined neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Provisionally accepted
Hai  ZhangHai Zhang1Zicheng  DaiZicheng Dai1Bei  WangBei Wang1Bomeng  WuBomeng Wu1Jiangbo  LinJiangbo Lin2Wanli  LinWanli Lin1*
  • 1Afiliated Gaozhou People's Hospital, Guangdong Medical University, Guangdong, China
  • 2Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT) compared to those of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods Patients with locally advanced resectable ESCC undergoing neoadjuvant therapy followed by minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIE) between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2022, were categorized into the nCT, nCRT, and nICT groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the 13 baseline covariates across the groups. Post-IPTW comparisons included adverse events, surgical outcomes, pathologic complete response (PCR), tumor downstaging, and perioperative complications. Results A total of 437 patients were enrolled (nICT=218, nCRT=78, nCT=141). After propensity score matching(PSM), 78 patients were included in each group. During neoadjuvant therapy, the incidence of leukopenia was significantly higher in the nCRT (33.33%) and nICT (23.08%) groups than in the nCT (10.26%), p <0.05. Neutropenia rates followed a similar trend (nCRT: 19.23%; nICT: 17.95%; nCT: 2.56%, p <0.05). Immune-related dermatitis occurred in 10.26% of patients with nICT. Operative duration was significantly longer with nCRT (347.8 ± 80.8 min) than nCT (325.1 ± 52.6 min; p<0.05). The tumor-downstaging efficacy was ranked as follows: nICT > nCRT > nCT (p <0.05). Lymph node dissection:Yields: nCRT (26±11) < nICT (36±14) and nCT (35±12) (p<0.05),Stations: nICT (13±4) > nCRT (9±2) and nCT (11±2) (p<0.05). The PCR rates were 34.61% (nCRT), 26.92% (nICT), and 5.13% (nCT), respectively (p <0.05). Postoperative 30-day mortality occurred in three nCRT and one nCT patients. Postoperative arrhythmia incidence was highest with nICT (12.82%), intermediate with nCT (5.13%), and absent with nCRT (0.00%).Conclusion For locally advanced resectable ESCC, nCRT requires vigilant management because of its association with grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs). While nICT demonstrates a lower incidence of severe (grade ≥3) non-immune toxicities compared to nCRT, supporting its controllable safety . nCRT achieved superior PCR rates versus nICT/nCT, but nICT showed greater nodal (N) downstaging efficacy. Conversely, nCRT provided enhanced primary tumor (T) control.

Keywords: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Immunotherapy, Chemoradiotherapy, Short-term efficacy

Received: 08 Aug 2025; Accepted: 03 Nov 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zhang, Dai, Wang, Wu, Lin and Lin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Wanli Lin, wanlilin2020@163.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.