Seeger, Grant R.

9001 Background: Ginseng is popularly used as a treatment for fatigue, one of the most common and disabling symptoms in people diagnosed with cancer. It is termed an “adaptogen”, thought to help the body combat negative effects of stress. This trial was to evaluate 2,000 mg American Ginseng versus placebo for cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing or having completed curative intent treatment and experiencing fatigue, rated at least 4 on a numeric analogue fatigue scale (1-10) for ≥1 month, were eligible. Exclusion criteria included CNS lymphoma, brain malignancies, or prior use of ginseng or chronic systemic steroids. Other etiologies for fatigue, such as pain and sleep, were also excluded. Patients were randomized to receive, in a double blind manner, 2,000 mg/d of American Ginseng or placebo in BID dosing for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the general subscale of the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory (MFSI) at 4 weeks. Other MFSI subscales and the fatigue-inertia subscale of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) were also analyzed. Data were transformed to a 0-100 scale. Results: 364 patients were enrolled from 10/2008 to 07/2011. Data at 4 and 8 weeks are provided for several fatigue endpoints in the table below; higher numbers are better. Mental, emotional and vigor subscales of the MFSI were not significantly different between arms. There were no statistically significant differences in any grade of toxicity or self reported side effects between ginseng and placebo. Conclusions: This trial provides data to support that American Ginseng reduces general and physical CRF over 8 weeks without side effects. The treatment did not provide significant reductions in fatigue at 4 weeks and did not impact mental, emotional, and vigor dimensions of fatigue. [Table: see text]

314 Background: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SB-ACA) is rare, having little prospective data guiding management. A prior phase I study evaluated UGT1A1 genotype specific dosing of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and capecitabine. Our prospective, multicenter clinical trial assessing tumor response in pts having metastatic SB-ACA, used a similar dosing strategy. Methods: Genotypes were determined via central lab. Previously untreated pts were dosed by UGT1A1*28 genotypes 6/6, 6/7, and 7/7 receiving 100/85/85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin d1, 150/150/75 mg/m2 irinotecan d1, and 1600/400/200 mg/m2 capecitabine (BID) d2-15 of 21 days. The study design was such that 1 confirmed response in 16 pts expanded enrollment to 33 pts, with 7 required for demonstrating efficacy. Results: 28 pts (13-6/6, 10-6/7, 5-7/7) have been enrolled [75% male, mean age 62.5 (range 41-77)]. Location of primary included: duodenum (63%), jejunum (26%), and ileum (7%), with pts having >1 metastatic site (abdominal-41%, bone-7%, liver-56%, lung-30%, nodal-52%, subcutaneous-4%, other-19%). Gr 3+ treatment related toxicity was not significantly different by genotype (50%-6/6, 44%-6/7, 20%-7/7, p=0.48) and included (pts): diarrhea(5), vomiting(5), leukopenia(5), neutropenia(7), and nausea(6). 57% (13 of 23) pts achieved responses during therapy, with a confirmed response rate of 39% (95% CI 0-58%). 18 have died, with a median follow-up of 8.3 mos (range 0-43). Conclusions: UGT1A1 genotype directed dosing with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and capecitabine appears to result in prolonged response in this population. Larger studies are needed to determine comparability to CapeOx alone or if response/toxicity differs among genotypes. Supported by NIH Grant CA25224, Sanofi-Aventis, and Pfizer. [Table: see text]