4.3 Article

Recurrence after thymoma resection according to the extent of the resection

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-9-51

Keywords

Thymoma; Thymectomy; Recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Complete resection of the thymus is considered appropriate for a thymoma resection because any remaining thymic tissue can lead to local recurrence. However, there are few studies concerning the extent of thymus resection. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study to investigate whether recurrence following thymoma resection correlated to the extent of resection. Methods: Between 1986 and 2011, a total of 491 patients underwent resection of thymic epithelial tumors with curative intent. Of those, we excluded patients with an undetermined World Health Organization (WHO) histologic type, patients with type C thymoma, and patients who underwent incomplete resection (n = 21). The remaining 342 patients were reviewed retrospectively and compared recurrence according to the extent of resection. Results: Extended thymectomy was performed in 239 patients (69.9%) and limited thymectomy was performed 103 patients (30.1%). In the extended thymectomy group, 29 recurrences occurred, and in the limited thymectomy group, 10 recurrences occurred. Comparing rates of freedom from recurrence between two groups, there was no significant statistical difference in total recurrence (p = 0.472) or local recurrence (p = 0.798). After matching patients by stage and tumor size, there was no significant difference in freedom from recurrence between the two groups (p = 0.162). Additionally, after adjusting for histologic type and MG, there was also no significant difference (p = 0.125) between groups. Conclusions: No difference in the rate of recurrence was observed in patients following limited thymectomy compared with extended thymectomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available