Clinical characteristics and endoscopic management of inflammatory fibroid polyp of the gastrointestinal tract

Table 1 Clinical and endoscopic characteristics of the 108 patients with inflammatory fibroid polyp of the gastrointestinal tract, n (%)

Characteristics	Values
Patients	108
Age (year), mean ± SD	54.6 ± 10.7
Gender, female	59 (54.6)
Symptoms
Asymptomatic	75 (69.4)
Epigastric pain	12 (11.1)
Epigastric discomfort or abdominal distension	10 (9.3)
Melena or occult blood in feces	5 (4.6)
Loss of appetite	2 (1.9)
Nausea	2 (1.9)
Vomiting	2 (1.9)
Lesion size, mm, median (range)	10 (5-50)
Lesion location
Stomach	70 (64.8)
Cardia	6 (5.6)
Corpus	9 (8.3)
Fundus	1 (0.93)
Angular incisure	1 (0.93)
Antrum	53 (49.1)
Esophagus	1 (0.93)
Duodenum	1 (0.93)
Large intestine	36 (33.3)
Cecum	2 (1.9)
Ascending colon	5 (4.6)
Transverse colon	6 (5.6)
Descending colon	2 (1.9)
Sigmoid colon	10 (9.3)
Rectum	11 (10.2)
Morphology	118
Type I	62 (52.5)
Type II	33 (28.0)
Type III	11 (9.3)
Type IV	12 (10.2)
Surface erosion or ulcerations	28 (25.9)
Number of lesion
Single	101 (93.5)
Multiple	7 (6.5)

IFP: Inflammatory fibroid polyp; GI: Gastrointestinal.

Table 2 Therapeutic outcomes of endoscopic treatments, n (%)

Outcomes	Values
Endoscopic treatment
CSP	19 (17.6)
HSP	45 (41.2)
EMR	11 (10.2)
ESD	32 (29.6)
STER	1 (0.9)
Success rate	100 (108)
Operation time, minutes, median (range)	8 (3-120)
En bloc resection	107 (99.1)
Endoscopic complete resection	107 (99.1)
Adverse events
Fever	3 (2.7)
Delayed bleeding	0
Perforation	0
Follow-up, months, median (range)	50 (8-124)
Recurrence rate	3 (2.8)

CSP: Cold snare polypectomy; HSP: Hot snare polypectomy; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; STER: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection.

Table 3 Comparative analysis of gastric vs colorectal inflammatory fibroid polyp patients, n (%)

Variables	Gastric IFP group (n = 70)	Colorectal IFP group (n = 36)	P value
Age (year), mean ± SD	55.5 ± 9.8	52.9 ± 12.5	0.238
Gender, female	42 (60)	16 (44.4)	0.128
Symptomatic	25 (35.7)	7 (19.4)	0.084
Lesion size, mm			0.004
< 20 mm	52 (74.3)	35 (97.2)
≥ 20 mm	18 (25.7)	1 (2.8)
Endoscopic treatment			< 0.001
CSP	5 (7.1)	14 (38.9)
HSP	28 (40)	17 (47.2)
EMR	9 (12.9)	2 (5.6)
ESD	27 (38.6)	3 (8.3)
STER	1 (1.4)	0
Operation time, minutes, median	12 (5-120)	4.5 (3-30)	< 0.001

IFP: Inflammatory fibroid polyp; CSP: Cold snare polypectomy; HSP: Hot snare polypectomy; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; STER: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection.

Table 4 Univariate analysis of factors associated with large inflammatory fibroid polyp lesions (≥ 20 mm), n (%)

Variables	Categories	Lesion size ≥ 20 mm (n = 21)	Lesion size < 20 mm (n = 87)	P value
Age (year), mean ± SD	-	56.2 ± 9.8	54.3 ± 10.9	0.497
Gender	Male	9 (42.9)	40 (46.0)	0.797
	Female	12 (57.1)	47 (54.0)
Lesion location	Upper GI tract (esophagus, stomach, duodenum)	20 (95.2)	52 (59.8)	0.002
	Colorectum	1 (4.8)	35 (40.2)
Surface erosion/ulceration	Yes	5 (23.8)	23 (26.4)	0.805
	No	16 (76.2)	64 (73.6)
Endoscopic treatment	Simple (CSP/HSP)	6 (28.6)	58 (66.7)	0.001
	Complex (EMR/ESD/STER)	15 (71.4)	29 (33.3)

GI: Gastrointestinal; CSP: Cold snare polypectomy; HSP: Hot snare polypectomy; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; STER: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection.

Table 5 Clinical and endoscopic characteristics of three patients with recurrent inflammatory fibroid polyp

Number	Gender	Age (year)	Lesion location	Lesion size (mm)	Morphology	Surface erosion or ulcerations	ER techniques	Recurrence time (month)
Patient 1	Female	41	Gastric antrum	20	Type I	None	EMR	96
Patient 2	Male	49	Gastric antrum	18	Type I	None	ESD	24
Patient 3	Female	53	Gastric antrum	20	Type I	None	ESD	12

ER: Endoscopic resection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.