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.

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.