Evaluation of Major Pathologic Response and Pathologic Complete Response as Surrogate End Points for Survival in Randomized Controlled Trials of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Resectable in NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy remains as to whether pathologic complete response (pCR) and major pathologic response (MPR) represent surrogate end points for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant trials for resectable NSCLC. METHODS: A search of PubMed and archives of international conference abstracts was performed from June 2017 through October 31, 2023. Studies incorporating a neoadjuvant arm with immune checkpoint blockade alone or in combination with chemotherapy were included. Those not providing information regarding pCR, MPR, EFS, or OS were excluded. For trial-level surrogacy, log ORs for pCR and MPR and log hazard ratios for EFS and OS were analyzed using a linear regression model weighted by sample size. The regression coefficient and R2 with 95% confidence interval were calculated by the bootstrapping approach. RESULTS: Seven randomized clinical trials were identified for a total of 2385 patients. At the patient level, the R2 of pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS were 0.82 (0.66-0.94) and 0.81 (0.63-0.93), respectively. The OR of 2-year EFS rates by response status was 0.12 (0.07-0.19) and 0.11 (0.05-0.22), respectively. For the 2-year OS, the R2 of pCR and MPR were 0.55 (0.09-0.98) and 0.52 (0.10-0.96), respectively. At the trial level, the R2 for the association of OR for response and HR for EFS was 0.58 (0.00-0.97) and 0.61 (0.00-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses reveal a robust correlation between pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS but not OS. Trial-level surrogacy was moderate but imprecise. More mature follow-up and data to assess the impact of study crossover are needed.

Implantable hearing devices in clinical practice. Systematic review and consensus statements.

Objective: Implantable hearing devices represent a modern and innovative solution for hearing restoration. Over the years, these high-tech devices have increasingly evolved but their use in clinical practice is not universally agreed in the scientific literature. Congresses, meetings, conferences, and consensus statements to achieve international agreement have been made. This work follows this line and aims to answer unsolved questions regarding examinations, selection criteria and surgery for implantable hearing devices. Materials and methods: A Consensus Working Group was established by the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology. A method group performed a systematic review for each single question to identify the current best evidence on the topic and to guide a multidisciplinary panel in developing the statements. Results: Twenty-nine consensus statements were approved by the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology. These were associated with 4 key area subtopics regarding pre-operative tests, otological, audiological and surgical indications. Conclusions: This consensus can be considered a further step forward to establish realistic guidelines on the debated topic of implantable hearing devices.