Browsing by Author "Xiao, Lianchun"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A phase II trial of sitravatinib + nivolumab after progression on immune checkpoint inhibitor in patients with metastatic clear cell RCC
    (Oxford University Press, 2025) Hahn, Andrew W.; Adra, Nabil; Vaishampayan, Ulka; Xiao, Lianchun; Dizman, Nazli; Yuan, Ying; Mukhida, Sagar S.; Campbell, Matthew T.; Gao, Jianjun; Zurita, Amado J.; Jonasch, Eric; Tannir, Nizar M.; Shah, Amishi Y.; Msaouel, Pavlos; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Sitravatinib, an oral multi-kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR, TAM, and MET, has been shown to resensitize the tumor microenvironment to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) by reducing immune-suppressive myeloid cells in metastatic clear cell RCC (ccRCC). ICI is the standard first-line (1L) treatment of metastatic ccRCC, and there is unmet need for improved treatment outcomes after progression on ICI. We hypothesized that sitravatinib plus nivolumab would revert an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) to improve clinical outcomes. Methods: In this investigator-initiated, phase II, multicenter trial (NCT04904302), patients with progressive metastatic ccRCC after 1-2 lines of treatment were enrolled into 3 cohorts: (1) 1L nivolumab + ipilimumab, (2) 1L pembrolizumab + axitinib, (3) prior cabozantinib or lenvatinib and ICI. Starting dose of sitravatinib was 100 mg PO daily and nivolumab was 480 mg IV every 4 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) at 24 weeks. The study was designed to enroll 88 patients with an interim analysis for futility in each cohort using a BOP2 design, but it was terminated early due to discontinuation of sitravatinib development. Results: Fourteen patients were enrolled with 2 in cohort A, 6 in cohort B, and 6 in cohort C. Across all cohorts, the ORR was 15.4% (2/13, 1 not evaluable) and DCR at 24 weeks was 35.7% (5/14). DCR at 24 months was 63% for Cohort A + B and 0% for Cohort C. Median progression free survival was 5.5 mo [95% CI 3.8-not reached (NR)], and median overall survival was 13.3 mo (95% CI 8.77-NR). Six patients (42.9%) experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event (AE) and 2 patients (14.3%) experienced an immune-mediated AE. Conclusion: In this small phase 2 trial with limited sample size due to early termination, sitravatinib plus nivolumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and produced modest clinical benefit. The observed responses occurred in patients who did not receive prior treatment with cabozantinib or lenvatinib.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Communication Frameworks for Palliative Surgical Consultations: A Randomized Study of Advanced Cancer Patients
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Blumenthaler, Alisa N.; Robinson, Kristen Ashlee; Hodge, Caitlin; Xiao, Lianchun; Lilley, Elizabeth J.; Griffin, James F.; White, Michael G.; Day, Ryan; Tanco, Kimberson; Bruera, Eduardo; Badgwell, Brian D.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Objective: To evaluate whether patients with advanced cancer prefer surgeons to use the best case/worst case (BC/WC) communication framework over the traditional risk/benefit (R/B) framework in the context of palliative surgical scenarios. Background: Identifying the patient's preferred communication frameworks may improve satisfaction and outcome measures during difficult clinical decision-making. Methods: In a video-vignette-based randomized, double-blinded study from November 2020 to May 2021, patients with advanced cancer viewed 2 videos depicting a physician-patient encounter in a palliative surgical scenario, in which the surgeon uses either the BC/WC or the R/B framework to discuss treatment options. The primary outcome was the patients' preferred video surgeon. Results: One hundred fifty-five patients were approached to participate; 66 were randomized and 58 completed the study (mean age 55.8 ± 13.8 years, 60.3% males). 22 patients (37.9%, 95% CI: 25.4%-50.4%) preferred the surgeon using the BC/WC framework, 21 (36.2%, 95% CI: 23.8%-48.6%) preferred the surgeon using the R/B framework, and 15 (25.9%, 95% CI: 14.6%-37.2%) indicated no preference. High trust in the medical profession was inversely associated with a preference for the surgeon using BC/WC framework (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98, P = 0.03). The BC/WC framework rated higher for perceived surgeon's listening (4.6 ± 0.7 vs 4.3±0.9, P = 0.03) and confidence in the surgeon's trustworthiness (4.3 ± 0.8 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.04). Conclusions: Surgeon use of the BC/WC communication framework was not universally preferred but was as acceptable to patients as the traditional R/B framework and rated higher in certain aspects of communication. A preference for a surgeon using BC/WC was associated with lower trust in the medical profession. Surgeons should consider the BC/WC framework to individualize their approach to challenging clinical discussions.