. 2020 Jan 22;8(2):E172–E178. doi: 10.1055/a-1067-4520

Table 1. Study and patient characteristics.

Study	Publication type	Study design	Number of patients	Age (years)	Male/female	Prague C&M criteria		Prior treatment (n)		Baseline histopathology				Number of ablation sessions	Cryotherapy dosimetry
						C	M	RFA	EMR	ND/ID	LGD	HGD	IMC
Scholvinck 2015 ¹³	Full text	MC prospective	39	66 (median)	35/4	2 (median)	5 (median)	0	12	10	9	9	11	1	6 s (n = 10), 8 s (n = 28), 10 s (n = 18)
Wang 2015 ¹⁴	Abstract	SC retrospective	5	65 (median)	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	–	–	5	–	1	10 s
Sitaraman 2016 ¹⁵	Abstract	SC retrospective	17	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	–	2	12	3	1	10 s
Kunzli 2017 ¹⁶	Full text	SC prospective	30	66 (median)	26/4	0 (median)	0 (median)	23	15	–	14	7	9	1	10 s
Van Munster 2018 ¹⁷	Full text	SC retrospective	20	66 (median)	17/3	0 (mean)	2 (mean)	8	10	–	9	11	–	1	10 s
Canto 2018 ⁹	Full text	SC prospective	41	65.6 (mean)	19/22	1.7 (mean)	3.9 (mean)	19	14	–	13	23	5	3 (median)	10 s
Canto 2019 ¹⁸	Abstract	MC prospective	120	64.7 (mean)	101/19	1 (mean)	3 (mean)	0	54	–	28	64	23	2 (median)	10 s

C, circumferential extent of disease; M, maximum extent of disease; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; ID, infectious disease; IMC, imaging mass cytometry; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; MC, multicenter; ND no evidence of disease; NR, no response; SC, single-center