Phase II study of sodium valproate in combination with oral etoposide in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) have limited therapeutic options and poor survival. There is a need for the development of newer therapies. Sodium valproic acid (VPA) is a short-chain fatty acid histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor with antitumor activity in preclinical models of PROC. Synergism with conventional cytotoxic agents like etoposide has been demonstrated. In this prospective, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study, we included patients ≥ 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed PROC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) 0-3. Patients received oral VPA 60 mg/kg/day in three divided doses for 3 days (D1-D3), followed by oral etoposide 50 mg once daily for two consecutive weeks (D4-D17). Serum samples were collected to assess peak VPA drug levels. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. We sought to show an improvement in response rate from 25% (historically with oral etoposide) to 40% with the addition of VPA. 27 patients were enrolled in the study, and 18 [median age: 52 (45-59) years; serous histology:17 (94%); ECOG-PS 2 or 3: 14 (78%)] were evaluable for the response after 4 months. Nine patients were lost from follow-up before achieving the primary endpoint (mainly due to Covid-related lockdown issues). The median number of prior lines of treatment was 2 (1-3). ORR was 0% according to GCIG criteria. The disease was stable in two patients [clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 11%]. The median OS and PFS were 7 months and 2 months, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 6 (33%) patients. The addition of valproic acid to oral etoposide in patients with PROC and poor general condition was not helpful and failed to improve responses compared to those historically achieved with single-agent etoposide. However, further phase 2 randomized controlled trials with larger sample size can be done to confirm the findings.

Treatment delay and treatment pattern modifications among epithelial ovarian cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare access and medical treatment, including oncological care. Treatment delay in ovarian cancer could impact survival. We aimed to assess if there were delays and treatment changes in a cohort of epithelial ovarian cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of epithelial ovarian cancer patients included cases diagnosed during the first 22 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the state of Sao Paulo and those diagnosed in the 22 months preceding the outbreak. Time-to-treat was measured in days. In each group, surgery and chemotherapy proportions were assessed according to healthcare insurance status. RESULTS: A 56.2% reduction in epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis was identified during the pandemic group compared to the prepandemic group; fewer patients were diagnosed in stage I (p < 0.01). Time-to-treat increased from 18.9 to 23 days (p < 0.01). Surgery in the public sector fell from 74.6% to 65.3% during the pandemic, compared to 87.1% to 68.8% in the private sector. CONCLUSION: There were fewer overall diagnoses, reduced stage I diagnosis, increased time-to-treat, and a reduction in the proportion of patients submitted to surgery. Brazil's public healthcare system demonstrated a higher resiliency to treatment change than the private sector.

Electronic patient-reported monitoring of symptoms during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer patients require monitoring for relapse. Innovative follow-up methods are increasingly being explored. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up pathway was developed for women treated for ovarian cancer. This feasibility study explored patient acceptability and compliance. METHODS: A single-arm non-blinded prospective feasibility study was undertaken at two hospitals. Participants were women who had completed treatment for ovarian cancer whose clinician was happy for them to be monitored remotely. Automated 3-monthly reminders were sent to participants to complete an ePRO questionnaire and obtain blood tests. Participants were reviewed over the phone by their clinical nurse specialist instead of attending clinic-based follow-up. The primary outcome was compliance (expected ePRO completions/blood tests) across the 12-month study period. Secondary outcomes were recruitment, attrition, resource use, symptom severity/alerts and patient acceptability. RESULTS: Twenty-four women consented (50% consent rate), and 13 remained on study at 12 months. Seven women relapsed, 3 chose to withdraw, and 1 withdrew for other clinical reasons. ePRO compliance was high and consistent at 75-82%, although the two hospitals differed. Adherence to the clinical protocol was evident for blood tests and contacts with staff (fewer visits, more phonecalls compared to an earlier audit). End-of-study feedback indicated high patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Remote ePRO follow-up for ovarian cancer is feasible and acceptable to patients who are able and willing to participate. However, the low recruitment rate (ineligible + declined) indicate it is not suitable/acceptable to all patients immediately post-treatment. Further large-scale research and implementation work is required, especially in a post-COVID era. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02847715 (first registered 19/05/2016).

Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Taxane monotherapy regimens for the treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common kind, accounting for 90% of cases. First-line therapy for women with epithelial ovarian cancer consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy. However, more than 50% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer will experience a relapse and require further chemotherapy and at some point develop resistance to platinum-based drugs. Currently, guidance on the use of most chemotherapy drugs, including taxanes, is unclear for women whose epithelial ovarian cancer has recurred. Paclitaxel, topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, trabectedin and gemcitabine are all licensed for use in the UK at the discretion of clinicians, following discussion with the women as to potential adverse effects. Taxanes can be given in once-weekly regimens (at a lower dose) or three-weekly regimens (at a higher dose), which may have differences in the severity of side effects and effectiveness. As relapsed disease suggests incurable disease, it is all the more important to consider side effects and the impact of treatment schedules, as well as quality of life, and not only the life-prolonging effects of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of different taxane monotherapy regimens for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, up to 22 March 2022. Other related databases and trial registries were searched as well as grey literature and no additional studies were identified. A total of 1500 records were identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of taxane monotherapy for adult women diagnosed with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. We included trials comparing two or more taxane monotherapy regimens. Participants could be experiencing their first recurrence of disease or any line of recurrence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened, independently assessed studies, and extracted data from the included studies. The clinical outcomes we examined were overall survival, response rate, progression-free survival, neurotoxicity, neutropenia, alopecia, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models following standard Cochrane methodology. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 1500 records of 1466 studies; no additional studies were identified by searching grey literature or handsearching. We uploaded the search results into Covidence. After the exclusion of 92 duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 1374 records. Of these, we identified 24 studies for full-text screening. We included four parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All trials were multicentred and conducted in a hospital setting. The studies included 981 eligible participants with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer with a median age ranging between 56 to 62 years of age. All participants had a WHO (World Health Organization) performance status of between 0 to 2. The proportion of participants with serous histology ranged between 56% to 85%. Participants included women who had platinum-sensitive (71%) and platinum-resistant (29%) relapse. Some participants were taxane pre-treated (5.6%), whilst the majority were taxane-naive (94.4%). No studies were classified as having a high risk of bias for any of the domains in the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We found that there may be little or no difference in overall survival (OS) between weekly paclitaxel and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.33, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there may be little or no difference in response rate (RR of 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and progression-free survival (PFS) (RR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) between weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain. We found differences in the chemotherapy-associated adverse events between the weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel regimens. The weekly paclitaxel regimen may result in a reduction in neutropenia (RR 0.51, 95% 0.27 to 0.95, two studies, 260 participants, low-certainty evidence) and alopecia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73, one study, 205 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in neurotoxicity, but the evidence was very low-certainty and we cannot exclude an effect (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45, two studies, 260 participants). When examining the effect of paclitaxel dosage in the three-weekly regimen, the 250 mg/m2 paclitaxel regimen probably causes more neurotoxicity compared to the 175 mg/m2 regimen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, one study, 330 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life data were not extractable from any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Fewer people may experience neutropenia when given weekly rather than three-weekly paclitaxel (low-certainty evidence), although it may make little or no difference to the risk of developing neurotoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). This is based on the participants receiving lower doses of drug more often. However, our confidence in this result is low and the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Weekly paclitaxel probably reduces the risk of alopecia, although the rates in both arms were high (46% versus 79%) (low-certainty evidence). A change to weekly from three-weekly chemotherapy could be considered to reduce the likelihood of toxicity, as it may have little or no negative impact on response rate (very low-certainty evidence), PFS (very low-certainty evidence) or OS (very low-certainty evidence). Three-weekly paclitaxel, given at a dose of 175 mg/m2 compared to a higher dose,probably reduces the risk of neurotoxicity.We are moderately confident in this result; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. A change to 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel (from a higher dose), if a three-weekly regimen is used, probably has little or no negative impact on PFS or OS (very low-certainty evidence).

The utility of physical examination in ovarian cancer recurrence detection: a retrospective analysis informing virtual surveillance care.

OBJECTIVES: Given the recent rapid increase in telemedicine in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to investigate the utility of symptom review, CA125, and physical examination in the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence to determine the role of virtual surveillance care in the COVID-19 era. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2013 and 2020 who achieved remission after primary treatment and then had recurrence while in a routine surveillance program. Modalities that detected recurrence including symptoms, CA125, physical examination, or 'other,' which was denoted if imaging was obtained for reasons other than suspected recurrence and recurrence was incidentally identified, were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the cohort. RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients met inclusion criteria. At time of recurrence, elevated CA125 was present in 97 (89.0%) patients, symptoms in 41 (37.6%), and abnormal physical exam findings in 27 (24.8%). Recurrence was incidentally found with imaging obtained for reasons other than suspicion of recurrence in six (5.5%) patients. Recurrence was suspected based on multiple modalities in 46 (42.2%) patients. Elevated CA125, symptoms, or both were present in 102 (93.6%) patients. Of patients with abnormal physical exam findings, 26 (96.3%) also had elevated CA125 or symptoms present. Recurrence was suspected based on physical exam findings alone in one (0.9%) patient. CONCLUSIONS: Over 90% of ovarian cancer recurrences were detected by rising CA125, symptoms, or both. Only one patient had recurrence detected by physical examination alone. Given that review of symptoms and CA125 can be conducted virtually, virtual visits may offer a reasonable alternative to in-person visits for ovarian cancer surveillance for patients who have pre-treatment elevated CA125.

Patients' expectations of preventive measures of medical institutions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany in women with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional, web-based survey.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-approved contingency measures for protection of patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 infection and to use these findings to improve staff's preparedness to cope with the course of this pandemic or similar situations. METHODS DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS: We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of women with an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer, regardless of whether they had experienced an active malignant disease during the pandemic. A self-reported questionnaire, developed for this study, was used to assess expectations and opinions about preventive measures within medical institutions. RESULTS: Sixty-four (71.9%) of the 89 potential participants responded to at least one question regarding contingency measures within medical institutions. Approximately 37% of the respondents preferred having information about their facility's hygiene protocols before appointment; 57.8% of the respondents endorsed regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients prior to medical appointments and 95.3% endorsed regular testing of HCWs. Additionally, 84.4% of the respondents supported HCWs' use of surgical masks and 68.8% supported HCWs' use of masks with greater protection. Notably, 75.0% of the respondents advocated for the presence of a significant other during medical consultations; 71.9% approved the use of telemedicine and 93.8% endorsed changes in appointment practices to enable social distancing. No significant associations were found between respondents' sociodemographic, disease-specific or pandemic-specific factors and their opinions on hygiene precautions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk of infection or severe course of COVID-19 approve strict contingency measures designed to lower the transmission of COVID-19 in medical facilities. Moreover, vulnerable groups may profit from contingency plans in healthcare facilities in order to follow preventive measures, avoid diagnostic delay or avoid worsening of pre-existing conditions. However, they also value the presence of a significant other during medical consultations and procedures.

The Impact of COVID-19 Infection During the Postoperative Period After Surgery for Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced the management of oncogynecologic patients in regard to time of diagnosis, to delay of treatment, therapeutic strategy and postoperative complications. The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of preoperative SARS-Cov2 infection on the postoperative outcome after debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 2021 and September 2021, 12 patients with antecedents of COVID-19 infection and ovarian cancer were submitted to surgery at "Dr. I. Cantacuzino" Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. Their outcomes were compared to those reported in a similar group of patients submitted to surgery during the same period in the absence of COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: Although preoperative data showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups, intraoperative length and estimated blood loss were higher in the COVID-19 group and so were the postoperative complications, the most commonly encountered ones being reported by wound infection, postoperative hemoperitoneum and pneumonia. However, the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Preoperative COVID-19 infection seems to slightly increase the risk of postoperative complications after debulking surgery for ovarian cancer.

Hormone replacement therapy after surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women who have undergone surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) may develop menopausal symptoms due to immediate loss of ovarian function following surgery and chemotherapy. Women may experience vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance, difficulty concentrating, sexual dysfunction, vaginal symptoms and accelerated osteoporosis. Although hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective treatment to relieve these symptoms, its safety has been questioned for women with EOC. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of HRT for menopausal symptoms in women surgically treated for EOC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2019) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2019, week 23). We also handsearched conference reports and trial registries. There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants of any age and menopausal status who had undergone surgery for EOC and, after diagnosis and treatment, used any regimen and duration of HRT compared with placebo or no hormone therapy. We also included trials comparing different regimens or duration of administration of HRT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified studies that met the inclusion criteria. They used Covidence to extract study characteristics, outcome data and to assess methodological quality of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 2617 titles, of which 2614 titles were excluded. Three studies, involving 350 women, met our inclusion criteria. Two of the studies included pre and postmenopausal women, and the third only included premenopausal women. The overall age range of those women included in the studies was 20 to 89.6 years old, with a median follow-up ranging from 31.4 months to 19.1 years. The geographical distribution of participants included Europe, South Africa and China. All stages and histological subtypes were included in two of the studies, but stage IV disease had been excluded in the third. The three included studies used a variety of HRT regimens (conjugated oestrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone and with or without nylestriol) and HRT administrations (oral, patch and implant), In all studies, the comparisons were made versus women who had not received HRT. The studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and reporting bias, and at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The certainty of the evidence was low for overall survival and progression-free survival, and very low for quality-of-life assessment, incidence of breast cancer, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Meta-analysis of these studies showed that HRT may improve overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.93; 350 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life assessment by use of the EORTC-C30 questionnaire was performed only in one study. We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces quality of life as the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low (mean difference (MD) 13.67 points higher, 95% CI 9.26 higher to 18.08 higher; 1 study; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Likewise, HRT may make little or no difference to progression-free survival (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.01; 275 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces the incidence of breast cancer (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 225 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); TIA (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.42; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); CVA (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and MI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gallstones was not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hormone replacement therapy may slightly improve overall survival in women who have undergone surgical treatment for EOC, but the certainty of the evidence is low. HRT may make little or no difference to quality of life, incidence of breast cancer, TIA, CVA and MI as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. There may be little or no effect of HRT use on progression-free survival. The evidence in this review is limited by imprecision and incompleteness of reported relevant outcomes and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. Future well-designed RCTs are required as this is an important area to women experiencing menopausal symptoms following surgical treatment for ovarian cancer, especially as doctors are often reluctant to prescribe HRT in this scenario. The evidence in this review is too limited to support or refute that HRT is very harmful in this population.

The "collateral damage" of the war on COVID-19: impact of the pandemic on the care of epithelial ovarian cancer.

The covid-19 pandemic has impacted the management of non-covid-19 illnesses. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) requires long-duration multidisciplinary treatment. Teleconsultation and shared care are suggested solutions to mitigate the consequences of the pandemic. However, these may be challenging to implement among patients who come from the lower economic strata. We report the disastrous impact of the pandemic on the care of EOC by comparing patients who were treated during the pandemic with those treated in the previous year. We collected the following data from newly diagnosed patients with EOC: time from diagnosis to treatment, time for completion of planned chemotherapy, and proportion of patients completing various components of therapy (surgery and chemotherapy). Patients treated between January 2019 and September 2019 (Group 1: Pre-covid) were compared with those treated between January 2020 and December 2020 (Group 2: During covid pandemic). A total of 82 patients were registered [Group 1: 43(51%) Group 2: 39(49)]. The median time from diagnosis to start of treatment was longer in group 2 when compared to group 1 [31(23-58) days versus 17(11-30) days (p = 0.03)]. The proportion of patients who had surgery in group 2 was lower in comparison to group 1 [33(77%) versus 21(54%) (p = 0.02)]. Proportion of patients who underwent neoadjuvant (NACT) and surgery were fewer in group 2 in comparison to group 1 [9(33%) versus 18(64%) p = 0.002]. Among patients planned for adjuvant chemotherapy, the median time from diagnosis to treatment was longer in group 2 [28(17-45) days, group 1 versus 49(26-78) days, group 2 (p = 0.04)]. The treatment of patients with EOC was adversely impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a compromise in the proportion of patients completing planned therapy. Even among those who completed the treatment, there were considerable delays when compared with the pre-covid period. The impact of these compromises on the outcomes will be known with longer follow-up.

Survival outcomes after delayed cytoreduction surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Interval cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a well-recognized treatment alternative to primary debulking surgery in the treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer where patient and/or disease factors prevent complete macroscopic disease resection to be achieved. More recently, the strain of the global COVID-19 pandemic on hospital resources has forced many units to alter the timing of interval surgery and extend the number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles. In order to support this paradigm shift and provide more accurate counseling during these unprecedented times, we investigated the survival outcomes in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer patients with the intent of maximal cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with respect to timing of surgery and degree of cytoreduction. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients aged 18 years and above with FIGO (2014) stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the intention of interval cytoreduction surgery between January 2008 and December 2017 was conducted. Overall and progression-free survival outcomes were analyzed and compared with patients who only received chemotherapy. Outcome measures were correlated with the number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles and amount of residual disease following surgery. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy-one patients (median age 67 (range 20-91) years) were included in the study with 572 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery and 99 patients with chemotherapy only. There was no difference in the proportion of patients in whom complete cytoreduction was achieved based on number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (2-4 cycles: 67.7%, n=337/498); ≥5 cycles: 62.2%, n=46/74). Patients undergoing cytoreduction surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a median 5-year progression-free and overall survival of 24 and 38 months, respectively. No significant difference in overall survival between surgical groups was observed (interval cytoreduction: 41 months vs delayed cytoreduction: 43 months, p=0.52). Those who achieved complete cytoreduction to R0 (no macroscopic disease) had a significant median overall survival advantage compared with those with any macroscopic residual disease (R0: 49-51 months vs R<1: 22-39 months, p<0.001 vs R≥1: 23-26 months, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes do not appear to be worse for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy if cytoreduction surgery is delayed beyond three cycles. In advanced epithelial ovarian cancer patients the imperative to achieve complete surgical cytoreduction remains gold standard, irrespective of surgical timing, for best survival benefit.

Impact of ICU bed availability on ovarian cancer surgical hospitalization rates during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which began in 2020, disrupted healthcare services. Reports of changes in surgical activities coincide with the outbreak period. We aimed to identify if changes could be determined in hospitalization rates of ovarian cancer patients from 2016 to 2020, comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic levels. METHODS: Aggregated data were obtained from the State of São Paulo Secretary of Health regarding ovarian cancer clinical and surgical hospitalization, both Coronavirus disease-specific ICU and infirmary bed occupation rates, average social distancing rates, coronavirus disease 2019 incidence, mortality, and lethality rates. We performed the joinpoint analysis to verify if there were changes regarding hospitalization rates during this period. We also calculated hospitalization rate ratios and tested if they were correlated with pandemic-related variables. RESULTS: Hospitalization rates in the state fell, coinciding with the pandemic. Surgical hospitalization rate ratios were inversely correlated with Coronavirus disease-specific ICU bed occupation rates during the third trimester of 2020, with a Pearson's correlation coefficient of -0.50 (95%CI -0.78 to -0.05, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the treatment of conditions that compete for the same healthcare resources.