Recent advancement of therapeutic endoscopy in the esophageal benign diseases

Table 2 Series reporting on safety and efficacy of per-oral endoscopic tumor resection

Ref.	Country	No. of patients	Mean tumor size (mm)	Complete resectionb (%)	Piecemeal or disrupted capsule (%)	Complications(%)
Inoue et al[97] 2011a	Japan	9	29.4	100 (7/9)	0	0
Cai et al[105] 2012	China	1	20	100	NS	100
Gong et al[106] 2012	China	12	19.5	83.3 (10/12)	16.7 (2/12)	16.7
Xu et al[107] 2012	China	15	19	100	0	13.3
Liu et al[103] 2013	China	12	18.5	100	0	66.7
Xu et al[108] 2013	China	23	21	100	0	39
Wang et al[99] 2013	China	18	33	NS	NS	16.7
Chen et al[109] 2014	China	1	#1 = 25 #2 = 30	100	0	0
Kumbhari et al[100] 2014	United States	1	60	0	100	NS
Lu et al[110] 2014	China	42	12.1	97.7 (44/45)	2.3 (1/45)	15.6
Ye et al[104] 2014	China	85	19.2	100	0	9.4
Wang et al[98] 2014	China	57	21.5	100	0	21
Lu et al[111] 2014c	China	18	21	100	0	11.1

^aThe 2 subepithelial tumors (SETs) that could not be resected were 60 and 75 mm in size and an adequate endoscopic field for safe extraction was not possible;

^bComplete resection refers to en bloc extraction of the tumor with intact capsule and clear margins;

^cSeries included only cardia and gastric SETs. NS: Not specified.