ArticleJTCVS open2026
Margin-negative resection and long-term survival following robot-assisted thymectomy for thymoma: A tumor size stratified analysis.
Article in JTCVS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although open thymectomy has traditionally been the gold standard for resection of large thymic tumors, growing evidence has suggested minimally invasive thymectomy to confer comparable survival. However, the influence of incremental increases in tumor size on margin-negative resection and long-term survival following minimally invasive thymectomy remains understudied. Methods: All patients aged 18 years and older who underwent thymectomy for Stage I through III thymoma were tabulated from the 2010-2022 National Cancer Database. Those undergoing thoracoscopic or robotic procedures comprised the video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) cohorts, respectively (others: open thymectomy). Tumor size was stratified as ≤4 cm, 4 to 6 cm, 6 to 8 cm, and >8 cm. Results: Of 5132 patients, 2562 (50%) underwent open thymectomy, 692 (13%) VATS, and 1878 (37%) RATS. Overall, 48% of neoplasms ≤4 cm were performed using RATS, compared with 41% of 4 to 6 cm, 34% of 6 to 8 cm, and 18% of >8 cm in size. Following doubly robust risk-adjustment, RATS remained associated with significantly higher odds of achieving R0 for tumors ≤4 cm (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.03-3.10), and equivalent likelihood for neoplasms 4 to 6 cm (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.63-1.60), 6 to 8 cm (AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.87-2.76), and >8 cm (AOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.40-1.47; Reference category: open thymectomy). Among tumors ≤8 cm, VATS was linked with similar R0 odds as open thymectomy. Comparable survival was observed at 5 and 10 years across operative approaches and size strata. Conclusions: Utilization of RATS has rapidly increased since 2010. Relative to open thymectomy, RATS was associated with at least noninferior likelihood of achieving R0 for lesions ≤4 cm, and equivalent odds for tumors >4 cm, as well as comparable survival. Our findings underscore the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive thymectomy for appropriately selected larger thymomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.