Efficacy and safety of grasping forceps-assisted endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms: A multi-centre retrospective study

Table 1 Comparison of baseline clinicopathologic characteristics between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups

	GF-ER	ESD	P value
Age, yr
Median (IQR)	68.0 (54-80)	75.0 (66-82)	0.28
Sex, n (%)
Male	6 (75.0)	45 (71.4)	1
Female	2 (25.0)	18 (28.6)
Morphology, n (%)
Flat or depressed	5 (55.6)	46 (73.0)	0.43
Elevated	4 (44.4)	17 (27.0)
Ulceration, n (%)
Presence	0 (0)	4 (6.3)	1
Absence	9 (100)	59 (93.7)
Tumor size, mm
Median (IQR)	7 (4-11)	16 (9-22)	< 0.01
Tumor depth, n (%)
Mucosa	6 (66.7)	49 (77.8)	0.43
Submucosa	3 (33.3)	14 (22.2)
Histology, n (%)
Differentiated	9 (100)	49 (77.8)	0.31
Undifferentiated	0 (0)	14 (22.2)

P values were calculated using Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data. GF-ER: Grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; IQR: Interquartile range.

Table 2 Comparison of baseline clinicopathologic characteristics between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups for small lesions (defined as ≤ 10 mm in diameter)

	GF-ER	ESD	P value
Age, yr
Median (IQR)	67.5 (54-80)	75.5 (66-79)	0.39
Sex, n
Male	4 (66.7)	16 (80.0)	0.60
Female	2 (33.3)	4 (20.0)
Morphology, n (%)
Flat or depressed	4 (57.1)	16 (80.0)	0.33
Elevated	3 (42.9)	4 (20.0)
Ulceration, n (%)
Presence	0 (0)	1 (5.0)	1.0
Absence	7 (100)	19 (95.0)
Tumor size, mm
Median (IQR)	6.0 (4-8)	6.5 (5-9)	0.45
Tumor depth, n (%)
Mucosa	4 (57.1)	18 (90.0)	0.09
Submucosa	3 (42.9)	2 (10.0)
Histology, n (%)
Differentiated	7 (100)	17 (85.0)	1.0
Undifferentiated	0 (0)	3 (15.0)

P values were calculated using Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data. GF-ER: Grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; IQR: Interquartile range.

Table 3 Comparison of treatment outcomes between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups

	GF-ER	ESD	P value
Procedure time, min
Median (IQR)	4.0 (3.0-5.0)	55.0 (30-105)	< 0.01
En bloc resection, n (%)	9 (100)	63 (100)	1.0
R0 resection, n (%)	9 (100)	62 (98.4)	1.0
Curative resection, n (%)	9 (100)	55 (87.3)	0.54
Perforation, n (%)	0 (0)	5 (8.0)	1.0
Delayed bleeding, n (%)	0 (0)	1 (1.6)	1.0

P values were calculated using Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data. GF-ER: Grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; IQR: Interquartile range.

Table 4 Comparison of treatment outcomes for small lesions (defined as ≤ 10 mm in diameter) between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups

	GF-ER	ESD	P value
Procedure time, min
Median (IQR)	4.0 (3.0-5.0)	35.0 (25-75)	< 0.01
En bloc resection, n (%)	7 (100)	20 (100)	1.0
R0 resection, n (%)	7 (100)	20 (100)	1.0
Curative resection, n (%)	7 (100)	19 (95.0)	1.0
Perforation, n (%)	0 (0)	1 (5.0)	1.0
Delayed bleeding, n (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1.0

P values were calculated using Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data. GF-ER: Grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; IQR: Interquartile range.