Minimally Invasive versus Open Thymectomy for Thymic Malignancies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AbstractComplete resection is the standard of care for treatment of thymic malignancies. The use of minimally invasive surgery remains controversial. We searched online databases and identified studies from 1995 to 2014 that compared minimally invasive to open thymectomy for thymic malignancies. Study end points included operative blood loss, operative time, respiratory complications, cardiac complications, length of hospital stay, R0 resection, and recurrence. We summarized outcomes across studies using random-effects meta-analysis to account for study heterogeneity. We calculated ORs for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes. We calculated incidence rate ratios for the number of recurrences, accounting for total person-time observed in each study. Of 516 potential reference studies, 30 with a total of 2038 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients with Masaoka stage I or II thymic malignancy constituted 94.89% of those in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group and 78.62% of those in open thymectomy (open) group. Mean tumor size was 4.09 cm (MIS) versus 4.80 (open). Of the 1355 MIS cases, 32 were converted to open cases. Patients in the MIS group had significantly less blood loss; however, no significant differences in operating time, respiratory complications, cardiac complications, or overall complications were identified. Length of stay was shorter for patients in the MIS group. When patients with Masaoka stage I and II thymic malignancy only were analyzed, there was no difference in rate of R0 resection or overall recurrence rate. One postoperative death occurred in the open group. The results of this unadjusted meta-analysis of published reports comparing minimally invasive with open thymectomy suggest that in selected patients with thymic malignancy, minimally invasive thymectomy is safe and can achieve oncologic outcomes similar to those of open thymectomy

Tackling Diversity in Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: A Report From the Diversity Working Group of the IRONMAN Registry

Prostate cancer disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minority populations. Reasons for disparate outcomes among minority patients are multifaceted and complex, involving factors at the patient, provider, and system levels. Although advancements in our understanding of disease biology have led to novel therapeutics for men with advanced prostate cancer, including the introduction of biomarker-driven therapeutics, pivotal translational studies and clinical trials are underrepresented by minority populations. Despite attempts to bridge the disparities gap, there remains an unmet need to expand minority engagement and participation in clinical trials to better define the impact of therapy on efficacy outcomes, quality of life, and role of biomarkers in diverse patient populations. The IRONMAN registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03151629 ), a global, prospective, population-based study, was borne from this unmet medical need to address persistent gaps in our knowledge of advanced prostate cancer. Through integrated collection of clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, epidemiologic data, and biospecimens, IRONMAN has the goal of expanding our understanding of how and why prostate cancer outcomes differ by race and ethnicity. To this end, the Diversity Working Group of the IRONMAN registry has developed informed strategies for site selection, recruitment, engagement and retention, and trial design and eligibility criteria to ensure broad inclusion and needs awareness of minority participants. In concert with systematic strategies to tackle the complex levels of disparate care, our ultimate goal is to expand minority engagement in clinical research and bridge the disparities gap in prostate cancer care