A national analysis of open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for stage I–III thymic carcinoma

Jacob Hurd,Chinmay Haridas,Alexandra Potter,Ioana Baiu,Jorind Beqari,John Deng,Douglas Liou,Deven Patel,Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac159
2022-03-08
Abstract:Abstract OBJECTIVES The oncological efficacy of minimally invasive thymectomy for thymic carcinoma is not well characterized. We compared overall survival and short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgical (video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic) approaches using the National Cancer Database. METHODS Perioperative outcomes and overall survival of patients who underwent open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for Masaoka stage I–III thymic carcinoma from 2010 to 2015 in the National Cancer Database were evaluated using propensity score-matched analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modelling. Outcomes by surgical approach were assessed using an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS Of the 216 thymectomies that were evaluated, 43 (20%) were performed with minimally invasive techniques (22 video-assisted thoracoscopic and 21 robotic). The minimally invasive approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay when compared to the open approach (3 vs 5 days, P < 0.001). In the propensity score-matched analysis of 30 open and 30 minimally invasive thymectomies, the minimally invasive group did not differ significantly in median length of stay (3 vs 4.5 days, P = 0.27), 30-day readmission (P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (P = 0.60), 90-day mortality (P = 0.60), margin positivity (P = 0.39) and 5-year survival (78.6% vs 54.6%, P = 0.15) when compared to the open group. CONCLUSIONS In this national analysis, minimally invasive thymectomy for stage I–III thymic carcinoma was found to have no significant differences in short-term outcomes and overall survival when compared to open thymectomy.
surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
What problem does this paper attempt to address?