TABLE 3.

Comparison between desert and nondesert IP of preneoadjuvant therapy.

	All patients N = 28	Desert N = 17	Nondesert N = 11	p‐value
Age, year, median (range)	56 (37–73)	51 (37–71)	60 (39–73)	0.140
Sex, male, n (%)	19 (67.9)	12 (70.6)	7 (63.6)	1.000
Diagnosis, n (%)				0.305
Thymic carcinoma	24 (85.7)	16 (94.1)	8 (72.7)
Thymoma	4 (14.3)	1 (5.9)	3 (27.3)
Clinical TNM staging, n (%)				1.000
III	15 (53.6)	9 (52.9)	6 (54.5)
IV	13 (46.4)	8 (47.1)	5 (45.5)
Neoadjuvant therapy, n (%)				0.588
Chemotherapy	5 (17.9)	2 (11.8)	3 (27.3)
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy	23 (82.1)	15 (88.2)	8 (82.7)
Response to neoadjuvant therapy, n (%)				0.038
Partial response	10 (35.7)	3 (17.6)	7 (63.6)
Stable disease	18 (64.3)	14 (82.4)	4 (36.4)

Abbreviations: IP, immune phenotype.