Long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for small (≤ 4.0 cm) gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer

Table 3 Detailed information of studies evaluating endoscopic resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Author	Publication year	Study design	Case n	Endoscopic procedure	Tumor size, mean ± SD (cm)	Pathologic risk grade, n	Complete resection n (%)	surgical intervention n (%)	Recurrence n (%)	Follow-up (mo)
Feng et al[14]	2015	RS	50	Endoscopic resection	< 2	MI ≤ 5, 41 MI > 5, 9	NA	1 (2.0)	0	321 (12-65)
Shen et al[13]	2015	RS	32	ER	1.70 ± 0.36	Very low, 9 low, 18 intermediate, 3 high, 2	32 (100)	1 (3.1)	1 (3.1)	31.51 (2-53)
Joo et al[4]	2016	RS	90	ESD, 72 STER, 8 EMR, 7 EFTR, 2 Polypectomy, 1	2.3 ± 1.2	Very low, 45 Low, 28 Intermediate, 1 High, 6	88 (97.8)	5 (5.6)	2 (2.2)	46.0 ± 28.5
Tan et al[21]	2017	RS	52	STER, 20 EFTR, 32	STER, 17.8 ± 7.2; EFTR, 15.4 ± 6.6	Low, 26 Intermediate, 26	En bloc 50 (96.2)	1 (1.9)	1 (1.9)	10.9 ± 7.8 23.8 ± 18.6
An et al[11]	2017	RS	168	ESD	1.51 (0.5-6)	Very low, 117 Low, 37 Intermediate, 14	En bloc 168 (100)	0	0	251 (6-67)
Balde et al[18]	2017	RS	30	ESD	1.51 (1.0-1.8)	Very low, 22 Low, 4 Intermediate, 4	27 (90.0)	NA	2 (6.7)	57.9 (± 28.9)
Meng et al[19]	2017	RS	75	ESD	1.44 ± 0.67	NA	NA	NA	2 (2.7)	3.3 yr1 1-7 yr
Andalib et al[2]	2018	RS	12	EN, 5 EFTR, 7	2.41 (1.0 - 5.0)	Low, 11 Intermediate, 1	11 (91.7)	0	0	121 (6.5-24)
This study	-	RS	229	EME, 179 EFTR, 32 STER, 18	1.901 (1.0-4.0)	Very low, 147 Low, 72 Intermediate, 8 High, 2	221 (96.5)	1	0	571 (46-71)

¹Median. RS: Retrospective; ER: Endoscopic resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; STER: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; EN: Endoscopic enucleation; EME: Endoscopic muscularis excavation; EFTR: Endoscopic full-thickness resection; MI: Mitotic index.