Author of

• 15577

  +

  P3.08 - Poster Session/ Thymoma, Mesothelioma and Other Thoracic Malignancies (ID 226)

  • Event: WCLC 2015
  • Type: Poster
  • Track: Thymoma, Mesothelioma and Other Thoracic Malignancies
  • Presentations: 1
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 9/09/2015, 09:30 - 17:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B+C)

  • 15612

    +

    P3.08-035 - Impact of Histological Subtypes on Clinical Outcome of Thymoma (ID 3044)

    09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): J. Ahmed
    • Abstract

    Background:
    Thymoma is a rare tumor with heterogeneous clinical outcome. We aim to assess if there is an arbitrary cutoff point of clinical significance to the histological subtypes of Thymoma
    
    Methods:
    this is a retrospective study including all eligible patients with Thymoma presenting to National cancer institute, Cairo University during the period from 2008 to 2015. Patients were divided in to two groups according to histological subtypes, first group: included patients with histological subtypes (AB+B1+B2) whereas second group included patients with histological subtypes (B3+C+ Thymic carcinoma). Endpoints were to compare the two groups with regard to clinical response to chemotherapy, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with concordance to standard clinicopathological factors.
    
    Results:
    26 patients were included in the study with 69% in the first group (mean age = 45.44 years± 14.1 SD) versus 21% in the second group ( mean age=41.63 ± 12.53 SD).Regarding clinical response to chemotherapy, 11.1% in the first group showed progressive disease as compared to 37.5% in the second group (p=0.51). Median PFS for all thymoma patients was 43.1 months (median ±SD = 43.1± 20.8). there was a trend towards better PFS in the first group where 2 years PFS in the first group was 68.4% versus 43.8 in the second group, p value= 0.09. Median OS for all thymoma patients was 76.7 months, (median ± SD = 76.7±29.8). 2 years OS was 72.6% in the first group versus 43.8 in the second group. (P- Value=0.24).
    
    Conclusion:
    although numerically better there was no statistically significant difference between the first and second groups with regard to clinical outcome. Collaborative studies including larger sample size are warranted.