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

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 intentto-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), 30day 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.

Automated summary

This study compared the effectiveness of open and minimally invasive surgery (video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic) for thymic carcinoma. The results showed that there were no significant differences in short-term outcomes and overall survival between the two surgical approaches.