Combination of non-invasive and semi-invasive tests for diagnosis of minimal to mild endometriosis

Serum Levels of Interleukins in Endometriosis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to produce a comprehensive survey of the serum levels of interleukins (ILs) in untreated people with endometriosis compared with people without endometriosis.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search of English language studies within Cinahl, Medline Complete, PubMed, and Scopus from inception to May 2023 was performed.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We included studies that compared IL serum levels in people with endometriosis to those without endometriosis. Meta-analysis was performed on IL-1RA, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, IL-17A, IL-18, IL-23, and IL-37.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The systematic search retrieved 651 studies, of which 77 underwent a full-text review. A total of 30 studies met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. IL-1Ra, IL-6, and IL-37 serum levels were 2.56 (95% CI 2.20-2.92, p <.001), 1.38 (95% CI 0.58-2.17, p <.001), and 1.77 (95% CI 1.33-2.20, p <.001) standard deviations higher in the patients with endometriosis compared with patients without endometriosis while IL-23 serum levels 0.40 (95% CI -0.73 to -0.07, p = .02) standard deviations lower, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is mounting evidence that ILs, especially IL-6, may be good candidates for unique noninvasive diagnostic tools and/or treatment pathways for endometriosis.

Developing a Predictive Model for Minimal or Mild Endometriosis as a Clinical Screening Tool in Infertile Women: Uterosacral Tenderness as a Key Predictor

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To develop a noninvasive predictive model based on patients with infertility for identifying minimal or mild endometriosis.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

A total of consecutive 1365 patients with infertility who underwent laparoscopy between January 2013 and August 2020 were divided into a training set (n = 910) for developing the predictive model and a validation set (n = 455) to confirm the model's prediction efficiency. The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio.

INTERVENTIONS

Sensitivities, specificities, area under the curve, the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test, Net Reclassification Improvement index, and Integrated Discrimination Improvement index were evaluated in the training set to select the optimum model. In the validation set, the model's discriminations, calibrations, and clinical use were tested for validation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the training set, there were 587 patients with minimal or mild endometriosis and 323 patients without endometriosis. The combination of clinical parameters in the model was evaluated for both statistical and clinical significance. The best-performing model ultimately included body mass index, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, uterosacral tenderness, and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). The nomogram based on this model demonstrated sensitivities of 87.7% and 93.3%, specificities of 68.6% and 66.4%, and area under the curve of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.81-0.87) and 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.89) for the training and validation sets, respectively. Calibration curves and decision curve analyses also indicated that the model had good calibration and clinical value. Uterosacral tenderness emerged as the most valuable predictor.

CONCLUSION

This study successfully developed a predictive model with high accuracy in identifying infertile women with minimal or mild endometriosis based on clinical characteristics, signs, and cost-effective blood tests. This model would assist clinicians in screening infertile women for minimal or mild endometriosis, thereby facilitating early diagnosis and treatment.

Detection of nerve fibers in the eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis, uterine fibroids and adenomyosis

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to establish the presence of nerve fibers in the eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis and to determine whether these nerve fibers are exclusive to endometriosis or are also found in other pelvic pathologies associated with dysmenorrhea.

Methods

Endometrial tissue was obtained by aspiration (Pipelle), endometrial curettage, or following hysterectomy in women with endometriosis confirmed through histopathological examination, leiomyomas, and adenomyosis. The eutopic endometrium was subjected to immunohistochemical staining to detect PGP 9.5, which is a highly specific pan-neuronal marker. The nerve fiber density was correlated with the patient’s pain score, as indicated by the Visual Analog Scale. A control group was formed by staining the endometrium of women presenting with dysmenorrhea but without the above-mentioned disorders.

Results

Nerve fibers were observed in sections of the endo-myometrium (in the deep endometrium) in 68% of patients with endometriosis who underwent hysterectomy or a deep endometrial biopsy. Nerve fibers were not observed in the aspirated endometrium of women with endometriosis. Only 13.7% of women with adenomyosis and 3.3% of women with fibroids had nerve fibers in their endometrium. Nerve fiber density was correlated with pain score in women with endometriosis.

Conclusion

Nerve fibers were found in the functional layer of eutopic endometrium in women with endometriosis; hence, we concluded that the presence of nerve fibers in the eutopic endometrium could diagnose endometriosis with a fairly good specificity of 92.7%. However, the absence of nerve fibers does not always exclude the disease.

The Burden of Endometriosis on Women's Lifespan: A Narrative Overview on Quality of Life and Psychosocial Wellbeing

Endometriosis is a chronic, inflammatory disease affecting more than 170 million women worldwide and up to 10% of women of reproductive age. As a consequence of inflammatory reaction and infiltration of anatomic structures, endometriosis can cause “pain symptoms” including dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, dysuria, and chronic pelvic pain. In this review, we summarized the impact of endometriosis on quality of life in all its aspects including sexual life, work, and social relationships. The data research was conducted using web-based search engines and/or various electronic research databases querying for all articles related to endometriosis and quality of life from the inception of the database up to February 2020. Endometriosis has not only physical but also psychological effects, causing depression, anxiety, and compromising social relationships. Furthermore, endometriosis negatively impacts sexual life and social relationships. At last, the economic burden of endometriosis should not be underestimated, both individually and for the community, as this pathology leads to a loss of productivity at work and large use of health resources. Thus, endometriosis-related symptoms control women’s lives compromising the quality of life in all aspects. In this review, we summarized the impact of endometriosis on various aspects of women’s lives.

Combination of noninvasive methods in diagnosis of infertile women with minimal or mild endometriosis, a retrospective study in China

This study means to investigate a combination of noninvasive methods in diagnosis of minimal or mild endometriosis expecting to narrow down the range of laparoscopic exploration for female infertility.It is a retrospective case control study of totally 447 patients suspected unexplained infertility before surgery were eligible from May 2012 to February 2017. Of these, 299 patients were laparoscopy-proved minimal or mild endometriosis group, the remaining 148 patients served as control group (normal pelvis). Preoperative age, duration of infertility, type of infertility, body mass index, baseline follicle-stimulating hormone, anti-Müllerian hormone, serum CA125, clinical symptoms, findings on vagino-recto-abdominal examinations and pregnancy prognosis had been recorded. Every variable and their combinations were evaluated.Any single factor had limited diagnostic value. The cut-off value for CA125 was 19.25 IU/L. Parallel testing had a higher sensitivity at 81.3%. Serial tests of vagino-recto-abdominal examination combined with dysmenorrhea or positive CA125 got reasonable sensitivity (51.4% and 49%), remarkable high specificities (95.7% and100%) and Positive Predictive Value (96.4% and 100%). Multivariate logistic regression identified the following factors in decreasing order of importance: (1) vagino-recto-abdominal examinations, (2) CA125, (3) dysmenorrhea, their ORs being 16.148, 3.796, and 2.809, respectively. The spontaneous pregnancy rate (50.8%) in minimal or mild endometriosis was higher than control (35.6%, P = .043).A combination of noninvasive diagnostic methods had certain preoperative diagnostic value of minimal or mild endometriosis, which might benefit some patients from avoiding laparoscopic surgery.

Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

About 10% of women of reproductive age suffer from endometriosis, a costly chronic disease causing pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis. This review assessed the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of different non-invasive testing modalities for endometriosis and provided a summary of all the reviews in the non-invasive tests for endometriosis series.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of any combination of non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis (peritoneal and/or ovarian or deep infiltrating) compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard. The combined tests were evaluated as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and triage tests to assist decision-making to undertake diagnostic surgery for endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. We searched CENTRAL to July 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2015, as well as the following databases to April 2015: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, DARE and PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered published, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size, including prospectively collected samples from any population of women of reproductive age suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of a combination of several testing modalities with the findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of the data from each study by using the QUADAS-2 tool. For each test, the data were classified as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis and sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated. The bivariate model was planned to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient data were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful test to replace diagnostic surgery were a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.79 to detect endometriosis. We set the criteria for triage tests at a sensitivity of 0.95 and above and a specificity of 0.50 and above, which 'rules out' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a negative test result (SnOUT test), or a sensitivity of 0.50 and above and a specificity of 0.95 and above, which 'rules in' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a positive result (SpIN test).

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven eligible studies included 1339 participants. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. Seven studies evaluated pelvic endometriosis, one study considered DIE and/or ovarian endometrioma, two studies differentiated endometrioma from other ovarian cysts and one study addressed mapping DIE at specific anatomical sites. Fifteen different diagnostic combinations were assessed, including blood, urinary or endometrial biomarkers, transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and clinical history or examination. We did not pool estimates of sensitivity and specificity, as each study analysed independent combinations of the non-invasive tests.Tests that met the criteria for a replacement test were: a combination of serum IL-6 (cut-off >15.4 pg/ml) and endometrial PGP 9.5 for pelvic endometriosis (sensitivity 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.00), specificity 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80, 0.98) and the combination of vaginal examination and transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) for rectal endometriosis (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99), specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00)). Tests that met the criteria for SpIN triage tests for pelvic endometriosis were: 1. a multiplication of urine vitamin-D-binding protein (VDBP) and serum CA-125 (cut-off >2755) (sensitivity 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.84), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00)) and 2. a combination of history (length of menses), serum CA-125 (cut-off >35 U/ml) and endometrial leukocytes (sensitivity 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98)). For endometrioma, the following combinations qualified as SpIN test: 1. TVUS and either serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥25 U/ml) or CA 19.9 (cut-off ≥12 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.79 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.91), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00)); 2. TVUS and serum CA 19.9 (cut-off ≥12 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.70), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.0)); 3-4. TVUS and serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥20 U/ml or cut-off ≥25 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99)); 5. TVUS and serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥35 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.71), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.00)). A combination of vaginal examination and TVUS reached the threshold for a SpIN test for obliterated pouch of Douglas (sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.96), specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00)), vaginal wall endometriosis (sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.95), specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.0)) and rectovaginal septum endometriosis (sensitivity 0.88 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.00), specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.00)).All the tests were evaluated in individual studies and displayed wide CIs. Due to the heterogeneity and high risk of bias of the included studies, the clinical utility of the studied combination diagnostic tests for endometriosis remains unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the biomarkers evaluated in this review could be evaluated in a meaningful way and there was insufficient or poor-quality evidence. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis and using any non-invasive tests should only be undertaken in a research setting.

Nerve fibers and endometriotic lesions: partners in crime in inflicting pains in women with endometriosis

One of major objectives in treating endometriosis is to alleviate pain since dysmenorrhea and other types of pain top the list of complaints from women with endometriosis who seek medical attention. Indeed, endometriosis-associated pain (EAP) is the most debilitating of the disease that negatively impacts on the quality of life in affected women, contributing significantly to the burden of disease and adding to the substantial personal and societal costs. Unfortunately, the mechanisms underlying the EAP are still poorly understood. In the last two decades, one active research field in endometriosis is the investigation on the distribution and genesis of nerve fibers in eutopic and ectopic endometrium, and the attempt to use endometrial nerve fiber density for diagnostic purpose. Since EAP presumably starts with the terminal sensory nerves, in or around endometriotic lesions, that transduce noxious mediators to the central nervous system (CNS) which ultimately perceives pain, this field of research holds the promise to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the EAP, thus opening new avenues for novel diagnostics and therapeutics. In this review, we shall first briefly provide some basic facts on nerve fibers, and then provide an overview of some major findings in this filed while also note some conflicting results and expose areas in need of further research. We point out that since recently accumulated evidence suggests that endometriotic lesions are wounds undergoing repeated tissue injury and repair, the relationship between endometriotic lesions and nerve fibers is not simply unidirectional, i.e. lesions promote hyperinnervations. Rather, it is bidirectional, i.e. endometriotic lesions and nerve fibers engage active cross-talks, resulting in the development of endometriosis and pain. That is, nerve fibers and endometriotic lesions are actually partners in crime in inflicting pains in women with endometriosis, aided and abetted possibly by other culprits, some yet to be identified. We provide a list of possible perpetrators likely to be involved in this crime. Finally, we discuss possible implications when viewing the relationship from this vista.

Endometriosis: where are we and where are we going?

Endometriosis currently affects ~5.5 million reproductive-aged women in the U.S. with symptoms such as painful periods (dysmenorrhea), chronic pelvic pain, pain with intercourse (dyspareunia), and infertility. It is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterine cavity and is found predominately attached to sites within the peritoneal cavity. Diagnosis for endometriosis is solely made through surgery as no consistent biomarkers for disease diagnosis exist. There is no cure for endometriosis and treatments only target symptoms and not the underlying mechanism(s) of disease. The nature of individual predisposing factors or inherent defects in the endometrium, immune system, and/or peritoneal cavity of women with endometriosis remains unclear. The literature over the last 5 years (2010-2015) has advanced our critical knowledge related to hormones, hormone receptors, immune dysregulation, hormonal treatments, and the transformation of endometriosis to ovarian cancer. In this review, we cover the aforementioned topics with the goal of providing the reader an overview and related references for further study to highlight the progress made in endometriosis research, while concluding with critical areas of endometriosis research that are urgently needed.

Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

About 10% of reproductive-aged women suffer from endometriosis, a costly chronic disease causing pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive or minimally invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis. Although other reviews have assessed the ability of blood tests to diagnose endometriosis, this is the first review to use Cochrane methods, providing an update on the rapidly expanding literature in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate blood biomarkers as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and as triage tests to inform decisions on surgery for endometriosis. Specific objectives include:1. To provide summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of blood biomarkers for the diagnosis of peritoneal, ovarian and deep infiltrating pelvic endometriosis, compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard.2. To assess the diagnostic utility of biomarkers that could differentiate ovarian endometrioma from other ovarian masses.

SEARCH METHODS

We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. We searched CENTRAL to July 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2015, as well as these databases to 20 April 2015: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, DARE and PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered published, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size, including prospectively collected samples from any population of reproductive-aged women suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of one or more blood biomarkers with the findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of data from each study. For each diagnostic test, we classified the data as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis, and we calculated sensitivity and specificity estimates. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient datasets were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful blood test to replace diagnostic surgery were a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.79 to detect endometriosis. We set the criteria for triage tests at a sensitivity of ≥ 0.95 and a specificity of ≥ 0.50, which 'rules out' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a negative test result (SnOUT test), or a sensitivity of ≥ 0.50 and a specificity of ≥ 0.95, which 'rules in' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a positive result (SpIN test).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 141 studies that involved 15,141 participants and evaluated 122 blood biomarkers. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. Studies evaluated the blood biomarkers either in a specific phase of the menstrual cycle or irrespective of the cycle phase, and they tested for them in serum, plasma or whole blood. Included women were a selected population with a high frequency of endometriosis (10% to 85%), in which surgery was indicated for endometriosis, infertility work-up or ovarian mass. Seventy studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of 47 blood biomarkers for endometriosis (44 single-marker tests and 30 combined tests of two to six blood biomarkers). These were angiogenesis/growth factors, apoptosis markers, cell adhesion molecules, high-throughput markers, hormonal markers, immune system/inflammatory markers, oxidative stress markers, microRNAs, tumour markers and other proteins. Most of these biomarkers were assessed in small individual studies, often using different cut-off thresholds, and we could only perform meta-analyses on the data sets for anti-endometrial antibodies, interleukin-6 (IL-6), cancer antigen-19.9 (CA-19.9) and CA-125. Diagnostic estimates varied significantly between studies for each of these biomarkers, and CA-125 was the only marker with sufficient data to reliably assess sources of heterogeneity.The mean sensitivities and specificities of anti-endometrial antibodies (4 studies, 759 women) were 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.87) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.00). For IL-6, with a cut-off value of > 1.90 to 2.00 pg/ml (3 studies, 309 women), sensitivity was 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.75) and specificity was 0.69 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.82). For CA-19.9, with a cut-off value of > 37.0 IU/ml (3 studies, 330 women), sensitivity was 0.36 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99).Studies assessed CA-125 at different thresholds, demonstrating the following mean sensitivities and specificities: for cut-off > 10.0 to 14.7 U/ml: 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.82); for cut-off > 16.0 to 17.6 U/ml: 0.56 (95% CI 0.24, 0.88) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.75, 1.00); for cut-off > 20.0 U/ml: 0.67 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.80); for cut-off > 25.0 to 26.0 U/ml: 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.79) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77); for cut-off > 30.0 to 33.0 U/ml: 0.62 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.00); and for cut-off > 35.0 to 36.0 U/ml: 0.40 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.49) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.94).We could not statistically evaluate other biomarkers meaningfully, including biomarkers that were assessed for their ability to differentiate endometrioma from other benign ovarian cysts.Eighty-two studies evaluated 97 biomarkers that did not differentiate women with endometriosis from disease-free controls. Of these, 22 biomarkers demonstrated conflicting results, with some studies showing differential expression and others no evidence of a difference between the endometriosis and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Of the biomarkers that were subjected to meta-analysis, none consistently met the criteria for a replacement or triage diagnostic test. A subset of blood biomarkers could prove useful either for detecting pelvic endometriosis or for differentiating ovarian endometrioma from other benign ovarian masses, but there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions. Overall, none of the biomarkers displayed enough accuracy to be used clinically outside a research setting. We also identified blood biomarkers that demonstrated no diagnostic value in endometriosis and recommend focusing research resources on evaluating other more clinically useful biomarkers.

Endometrial biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

About 10% of reproductive-aged women suffer from endometriosis, which is a costly, chronic disease that causes pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but it is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive tests available in clinical practice that accurately diagnose endometriosis. This is the first diagnostic test accuracy review of endometrial biomarkers for endometriosis that utilises Cochrane methodologies, providing an update on the rapidly expanding literature in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the endometrial biomarkers for pelvic endometriosis, using a surgical diagnosis as the reference standard. We evaluated the tests as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and as triage tests to inform decisions to undertake surgery for endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. To identify trials, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2015, July), MEDLINE (inception to May 2015), EMBASE (inception to May 2015), CINAHL (inception to April 2015), PsycINFO (inception to April 2015), Web of Science (inception to April 2015), LILACS (inception to April 2015), OAIster (inception to April 2015), TRIP (inception to April 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception to April 2015). We searched DARE and PubMed databases up to April 2015 to identify reviews and guidelines as sources of references to potentially relevant studies. We also performed searches for papers recently published and not yet indexed in the major databases. The search strategies incorporated words in the title, abstract, text words across the record and the medical subject headings (MeSH).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered published peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size that included prospectively collected samples from any population of reproductive-aged women suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from each study and performed a quality assessment. For each endometrial diagnostic test, we classified the data as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis and calculated the estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We considered two or more tests evaluated in the same cohort as separate data sets. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient data were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful test to replace diagnostic surgery was one with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 79%. The criteria for triage tests were set at sensitivity at or above 95% and specificity at or above 50%, which in case of negative results rules out the diagnosis (SnOUT test) or sensitivity at or above 50% with specificity at or above 95%, which in case of positive result rules in the diagnosis (SpIN test).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving 2729 participants, most of which were of poor methodological quality. The studies evaluated endometrial biomarkers either in specific phases of the menstrual cycle or outside of it, and the studies tested the biomarkers either in menstrual fluid, in whole endometrial tissue or in separate endometrial components. Twenty-seven studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of 22 endometrial biomarkers for endometriosis. These were angiogenesis and growth factors (PROK-1), cell-adhesion molecules (integrins α3β1, α4β1, β1 and α6), DNA-repair molecules (hTERT), endometrial and mitochondrial proteome, hormonal markers (CYP19, 17βHSD2, ER-α, ER-β), inflammatory markers (IL-1R2), myogenic markers (caldesmon, CALD-1), neural markers (PGP 9.5, VIP, CGRP, SP, NPY, NF) and tumour markers (CA-125). Most of these biomarkers were assessed in single studies, whilst only data for PGP 9.5 and CYP19 were available for meta-analysis. These two biomarkers demonstrated significant diversity for the diagnostic estimates between the studies; however, the data were too limited to reliably determine the sources of heterogeneity. The mean sensitivities and specificities of PGP 9.5 (7 studies, 361 women) were 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.00) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), after excluding one outlier study, and for CYP19 (8 studies, 444 women), they were were 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.85) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 84), respectively. We could not statistically evaluate other biomarkers in a meaningful way. An additional 31 studies evaluated 77 biomarkers that showed no evidence of differences in expression levels between the groups of women with and without endometriosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We could not statistically evaluate most of the biomarkers assessed in this review in a meaningful way. In view of the low quality of most of the included studies, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Although PGP 9.5 met the criteria for a replacement test, it demonstrated considerable inter study heterogeneity in diagnostic estimates, the source of which could not be determined. Several endometrial biomarkers, such as endometrial proteome, 17βHSD2, IL-1R2, caldesmon and other neural markers (VIP, CGRP, SP, NPY and combination of VIP, PGP 9.5 and SP) showed promising evidence of diagnostic accuracy, but there was insufficient or poor quality evidence for any clinical recommendations. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis, and using any non-invasive tests should only be undertaken in a research setting. We have also identified a number of biomarkers that demonstrated no diagnostic value for endometriosis. We recommend that researchers direct future studies towards biomarkers with high diagnostic potential in good quality diagnostic studies.

Molecular aspects of development and regulation of endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common and painful condition affecting women of reproductive age. While the underlying pathophysiology is still largely unknown, much advancement has been made in understanding the progression of the disease. In recent years, a great deal of research has focused on non-invasive diagnostic tools, such as biomarkers, as well as identification of potential therapeutic targets. In this article, we will review the etiology and cellular mechanisms associated with endometriosis as well as the current diagnostic tools and therapies. We will then discuss the more recent genomic and proteomic studies and how these data may guide development of novel diagnostics and therapeutics. The current diagnostic tools are invasive and current therapies primarily treat the symptoms of endometriosis. Optimally, the advancement of "-omic" data will facilitate the development of non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers as well as therapeutics that target the pathophysiology of the disease and halt, or even reverse, progression. However, the amount of data generated by these types of studies is vast and bioinformatics analysis, such as we present here, will be critical to identification of appropriate targets for further study.

ENMD-1068, a protease-activated receptor 2 antagonist, inhibits the development of endometriosis in a mouse model

OBJECTIVE

Protease-activated receptor 2 plays an important role in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. We studied the effect of ENMD-1068, a protease-activated receptor 2 antagonist, on the development of endometriosis in a noninvasive fluorescent mouse model.

STUDY DESIGN

A red fluorescent protein-expressing xenograft model of human endometriosis was created in nude mice. After endometriosis induction, the mice were injected intraperitoneally with either 25 mg/kg or 50 mg/kg ENMD-1068 or with 200 μL of the vehicle control daily for 5 days. The endometriotic lesions that developed in the mice were then counted, measured, and collected. The lesions were assessed for the production of interleukin 6 and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and evaluated for the activation of nuclear factor-κB and the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor by immunohistochemical analyses. Cell proliferation and apoptosis were assessed by immunohistochemistry for Ki-67 and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end labeling, respectively.

RESULTS

ENMD-1068 dose-dependently inhibited the development of endometriotic lesions (P < .05) without apparent toxicity to various organs of the treated mice. Consistently, ENMD-1068 dose-dependently inhibited the expression of interleukin 6 and nuclear factor-κB (P < .05) and cell proliferation (P < .05) in the lesions, as well as increased the percentage of apoptotic cells (P < .05). ENMD-1068 reduced the levels of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor in the lesions (P < .05), but not in a dose-dependent manner.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that ENMD-1068 is effective in suppressing the growth of endometriosis, which might be attributed to the drug's antiangiogenic and antiinflammatory activities.