Concentrations of alpha-fetoprotein, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3, c-erbB-2, and epidermal growth factor in serum of patients with endometriosis

Non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis: Immunologic and genetic markers

Endometriosis, a benign gynecologic and chronic inflammatory disease, is defined by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterus characterized mainly by pelvic pain and infertility. Because endometriosis affects approximately 10% of females, it represents a significant socioeconomic burden worldwide having tremendous impact on daily quality of life. Accurate and prompt diagnosis is crucial for the management of this debilitating disorder. Unfortunately, diagnosis is typically delayed to lack of specific symptoms and readily accessible biomarkers. Although histopathologic examination remains the current gold standard, this approach is highly invasive and not applicable for early screening. Recent work has focused on the identification of reliable biomarkers including immunologic, ie, immune cells, antibodies and cytokines, as well as genetic and biochemical markers, ie, microRNAs, lncRNAs, circulating and mitochondrial nucleic acids, along with some hormones, glycoproteins and signaling molecules. Confirmatory research studies are, however, needed to more fully establish these markers in the diagnosis, progression and staging of these endometrial lesions.

Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Early and accurate diagnosis of endometriosis is crucial for the management of this benign, yet debilitating pathology. Despite the advances of modern medicine, there is no common ground regarding the pathophysiology of this disease as it continues to affect the quality of life of millions of women of reproductive age. The lack of specific symptoms often determines a belated diagnosis. The gold standard remains invasive, surgery followed by a histopathological exam. A biomarker or a panel of biomarkers is easy to measure, usually noninvasive, and could benefit the clinician in both diagnosing and monitoring the treatment response. Several studies have advanced the idea of biomarkers for endometriosis, thereby circumventing unnecessary invasive techniques. Our paper aims at harmonizing the results of these studies in the search of promising perspectives on early diagnosis.

METHODS

We selected the papers from Google Academic, PubMed, and CrossRef and reviewed recent articles from the literature, aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of various putative serum and urinary biomarkers for endometriosis.

RESULTS

The majority of studies focused on a panel of biomarkers, rather than a single biomarker and were unable to identify a single biomolecule or a panel of biomarkers with sufficient specificity and sensitivity in endometriosis.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive biomarkers, proteomics, genomics, and miRNA microarray may aid the diagnosis, but further research on larger datasets along with a better understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms are 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.

VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR SERUM LEVELS IN WOMEN WITH ADVANCED ENDOMETRIOSIS

CONTEXT

Endometriosis is a common gynecological disease, characterized by ectopic deposits of endometrial tissue outside of the uterine cavity, and it is associated with pelvic pain and infertility, with an important impact on the quality of life. At this point there is a controversy regarding the etiology and pathophysiology of endometriosis and it seems that pro-angiogenic growth factors might be involved, but their role is not completely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the serum concentration of the main growth factors in patients with diagnosed endometriosis compared to healthy controls.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 157 women were divided into two study groups (Group I - endometriosis; Group 2 - healthy women). Serum levels of VEGF, G-CSF, GM-CSF, b-FGF, EGF, and HGF were measured with Human Multiplex Cytokine Panels.

RESULTS

VEGF serum levels were significantly lower in women with endometriosis compared to controls (1.924±0.145 compared to 1.806±0.078 pg/mL, p<0.001). Serum levels of GM-CSF, b-FGF, EGF, and HGF respectively did not differ significantly between patients with endometriosis and healthy controls. G-CSF had a very low detection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that VEGF serum levels are significantly lower in endometriosis patients compared to healthy controls, indicating a possible role in endometriosis pathogenesis.

A prospective study of insulin-like growth factor 1, its binding protein 3, and risk of endometriosis

Several retrospective case-control studies suggested that insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) or insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) was associated with endometriosis. However, results are inconsistent and no prospective study exists. We prospectively evaluated associations between plasma levels of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 and laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis in a case-control study nested within the Nurses' Health Study II. Between blood collections in 1996-1999 and 2007, we ascertained 310 premenopausal women with incident endometriosis and 615 matched controls. We estimated incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals using multivariable conditional logistic regression. We observed no statistically significant associations between endometriosis and IGF-1 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61, 1.27; Ptrend = 0.48), IGFBP-3 (IRR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.80, 1.57; Ptrend = 0.51), and the IGF-1:IGFBP-3 molar ratio (IRR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.34; Ptrend = 0.64), comparing the top with the bottom tertile. IGF-1, IGFBP-3, and the molar ratio appeared to be positively associated with endometriosis risk among women aged <40 years at blood draw (IGF-1: IRR = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.86, 2.98; IGFBP-3: IRR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.16; IGF-1:IGFBP-3: IRR = 1.57, 95% CI: 0.85, 2.88) but not among women aged ≥40 years at blood draw (all Pheterogeneity ≤ 0.05). Overall, these data suggest that, if IGF-1 or IGFBP-3 plays a role in the etiology of endometriosis, it is minimal and perhaps only among younger women.

Peripheral biomarkers of endometriosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is estimated to affect 1 in 10 women during the reproductive years. There is often delay in making the diagnosis, mainly due to the non-specific nature of the associated symptoms and the need to verify the disease surgically. A biomarker that is simple to measure could help clinicians to diagnose (or at least exclude) endometriosis; it might also allow the effects of treatment to be monitored. If effective, such a marker or panel of markers could prevent unnecessary diagnostic procedures and/or recognize treatment failure at an early stage.

METHODS

We used QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria to perform a systematic review of the literature over the last 25 years to assess critically the clinical value of all proposed biomarkers for endometriosis in serum, plasma and urine.

RESULTS

We identified over 100 putative biomarkers in publications that met the selection criteria. We were unable to identify a single biomarker or panel of biomarkers that have unequivocally been shown to be clinically useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral biomarkers show promise as diagnostic aids, but further research is necessary before they can be recommended in routine clinical care. Panels of markers may allow increased sensitivity and specificity of any diagnostic test.

Advanced glycation end-product-induced mitogenesis and collagen production are dependent on angiotensin II and connective tissue growth factor in NRK-49F cells

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is characterized by glomerulopathy and tubulointerstitial expansion followed by renal fibrosis. Angiotensin II (Ang II) and connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) are involved in the pathogenesis of DN, while Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) is important in advanced glycation end-product (AGE)-induced effects in renal interstitial (NRK-49F) fibroblasts. Thus, we studied the role of Ang II, CTGF, and JAK2 in AGE-induced effects in NRK-49F cells. We found that AGE (150 microg/ml) increased mitogenesis and type I collagen production at 7 days while Ang II (10(-7)M) increased mitogenesis and type I collagen production at 3 days. We also found that AGE (150 microg/ml) increased angiotensinogen protein at 2 days, which was attenuated by AG-490 (a JAK2 inhibitor). AGE (150 microg/ml) increased CTGF mRNA and protein expression at 3 and 5 days, respectively. Ang II (10(-7)M) increased CTGF mRNA and protein expression at 1 and 2 days, respectively, which were attenuated by AG-490. Moreover, losartan (a type I angiotensin receptor blocker) and captopril (an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor) attenuated AGE-induced CTGF mRNA/protein expression while attenuating AGE-induced mitogenesis and type I collagen production. AG-490 and CTGF antisense (but not sense) oligodeoxynucleotide (ODN) attenuated Ang II (10(-7)M) and AGE-induced mitogenesis and type I collagen production at 3 and 7 days, respectively. We concluded that AGE (150 microg/ml)-induced mitogenesis and type I collagen production are dependent on the Ang II-JAK2-CTGF pathway in NRK-49F cells. Moreover, Ang II-induced mitogenesis and type I collagen production are dependent on the JAK2-CTGF pathway.