Race, gender, and safety: exposing biases in minimally invasive lung cancer surgery research.

Background: Video- and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery are proven safe alternatives to open thoracotomy. But smaller-scale studies examining outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open techniques may fail to capture patterns in health, gender, and race on a national scale. The aim of this study was to identify large-scale trends in the outcomes of MIS in a national database. Methods: We evaluated adverse events following MIS and open lung resection in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare database from 1992-2015. Results: A total of 746,441 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer. MIS patients undergoing limited resection (n=5,185) were more likely to be older (74.7 Conclusions: There are multiple differences between MIS and open surgery, but it is unclear if any confer a clinical benefit. Patients undergoing MIS tend to be healthier with earlier-stage disease, suggesting biases in patient selection. The data suggests that lung cancer should be considered a women's health issue and raises the concern that Black Americans do not have equal access to screening and treatment. While these results support the continued use of MIS, they should not substitute good surgical judgment when open surgery is required.