Bryan M Burt1, Xiaopan Yao2, Joseph Shrager3, Alberto Antonicelli2, Sukhmani Padda3, Jonathan Reiss4, Heather Wakelee3, Stacey Su5, James Huang6, Walter Scott5. 1. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: bryan.burt@bcm.edu. 2. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 4. University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California. 5. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive thymectomy (MIT) is a surgical approach to thymectomy that has more favorable short-term outcomes for myasthenia gravis than open thymectomy (OT). The oncologic outcomes of MIT performed for thymoma have not been rigorously evaluated. We analyzed determinants of complete (R0) resection among patients undergoing MIT and OT in a large international database. METHODS: The retrospective database of the International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group was queried. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, multivariate logistic regression models, and propensity matching were performed. RESULTS: A total of 2514 patients underwent thymectomy for thymoma between 1997 and 2012; 2053 of them (82%) underwent OT and 461 (18%) underwent MIT, with the use of MIT increasing significantly in recent years. The rate of R0 resection among patients undergoing OT was 86%, and among those undergoing MIT it was 94% (p < 0.0001). In propensity-matched MIT and OT groups (n = 266 in each group); however, the rate of R0 resection did not differ significantly (96% in both the MIT and OT groups, p = 0.7). Multivariate analyses were performed to identify determinants of R0 resection. Factors independently associated with R0 resection were geographical region, later time period, less advanced Masaoka stage, total thymectomy, and the absence of radiotherapy. Surgical approach, whether minimally invasive or open, was not associated with completeness of resection. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MIT for resection of thymoma has been increasing substantially over time, and MIT can achieve rates of R0 resection for thymoma similar to those achieved with OT.
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive thymectomy (MIT) is a surgical approach to thymectomy that has more favorable short-term outcomes for myasthenia gravis than open thymectomy (OT). The oncologic outcomes of MIT performed for thymoma have not been rigorously evaluated. We analyzed determinants of complete (R0) resection among patients undergoing MIT and OT in a large international database. METHODS: The retrospective database of the International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group was queried. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, multivariate logistic regression models, and propensity matching were performed. RESULTS: A total of 2514 patients underwent thymectomy for thymoma between 1997 and 2012; 2053 of them (82%) underwent OT and 461 (18%) underwent MIT, with the use of MIT increasing significantly in recent years. The rate of R0 resection among patients undergoing OT was 86%, and among those undergoing MIT it was 94% (p < 0.0001). In propensity-matched MIT and OT groups (n = 266 in each group); however, the rate of R0 resection did not differ significantly (96% in both the MIT and OT groups, p = 0.7). Multivariate analyses were performed to identify determinants of R0 resection. Factors independently associated with R0 resection were geographical region, later time period, less advanced Masaoka stage, total thymectomy, and the absence of radiotherapy. Surgical approach, whether minimally invasive or open, was not associated with completeness of resection. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MIT for resection of thymoma has been increasing substantially over time, and MIT can achieve rates of R0 resection for thymoma similar to those achieved with OT.
Authors: Amy J Wagner; Raul A Cortes; Jonathan Strober; Erich J Grethel; Matthew S Clifton; Michael R Harrison; Diana L Farmer; Kerilyn K Nobuhara; Hanmin Lee Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Arjun Pennathur; Irfan Qureshi; Matthew J Schuchert; Rajeev Dhupar; Peter F Ferson; William E Gooding; Neil A Christie; Sebastien Gilbert; Manisha Shende; Omar Awais; Joel S Greenberger; Rodney J Landreneau; James D Luketich Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Samuel J Youssef; Brian E Louie; Alexander S Farivar; Maurice Blitz; Ralph W Aye; Eric Vallières Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: J F Regnard; P Magdeleinat; C Dromer; E Dulmet; V de Montpreville; J F Levi; P Levasseur Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Bryan A Whitson; Rafael S Andrade; Mohi O Mitiek; Jonathan D'Cunha; Michael A Maddaus Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Dan M Meyer; Morley A Herbert; Nasin C Sobhani; Paul Tavakolian; Andrea Duncan; Michelle Bruns; Kevin Korngut; Janet Williams; Syma L Prince; L Huber; Gil I Wolfe; Michael J Mack Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Wentao Fang; Xiaopan Yao; Alberto Antonicelli; Zhitao Gu; Frank Detterbeck; Eric Vallières; Ralph W Aye; Alexander S Farivar; James Huang; Yue Shang; Brian E Louie Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Sukhmani K Padda; Xiaopan Yao; Alberto Antonicelli; Jonathan W Riess; Yue Shang; Joseph B Shrager; Robert Korst; Frank Detterbeck; James Huang; Bryan M Burt; Heather A Wakelee; Sunil S Badve Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 15.609