World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: III. Fluid biospecimen collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research

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.

Beyond Endometriosis Genome-Wide Association Study: From Genomics to Phenomics to the Patient

Endometriosis is a heritable, complex chronic inflammatory disease, for which much of the causal pathogenic mechanism remains unknown. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to date have identified 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms at 10 independent genetic loci associated with endometriosis. Most of these were more strongly associated with revised American Fertility Society stage III/IV, rather than stage I/II. The loci are almost all located in intergenic regions that are known to play a role in the regulation of expression of target genes yet to be identified. To identify the target genes and pathways perturbed by the implicated variants, studies are required involving functional genomic annotation of the surrounding chromosomal regions, in terms of transcription factor binding, epigenetic modification (e.g., DNA methylation and histone modification) sites, as well as their correlation with RNA transcription. These studies need to be conducted in tissue types relevant to endometriosis-in particular, endometrium. In addition, to allow biologically and clinically relevant interpretation of molecular profiling data, they need to be combined and correlated with detailed, systematically collected phenotypic information (surgical and clinical). The WERF Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project is a global standardization initiative that has produced consensus data and sample collection protocols for endometriosis research. These now pave the way for collaborative studies integrating phenomic with genomic data, to identify informative subtypes of endometriosis that will enhance understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms of the disease and discovery of novel, targeted treatments.

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.

Industry is not the dark side, but an essential partner to make progress in reproductive health

For the last 20 years, Thomas D'Hooghe has been coordinator of the Leuven University Fertility Center at Leuven University Hospitals, Belgium, one of the largest teaching hospitals in Europe. Since 1995, he has also been Professor of Reproductive Medicine and Biology at KU Leuven (University of Leuven) and Adjunct Professor at Yale University, USA. Since 1 October 2015, he has been the Vice President and Head of Global Medical Affairs Fertility at Merck's headquarters in Darmstadt, Germany. He has published nearly 300 papers in internationally peer-reviewed journals and has contributed to reproductive health serving major international organizations such as the WHO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, the Society of Reproductive Investigation and the World Endometriosis Research Foundation.

MicroRNAs: New players in endometriosis

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent inflammatory disorder that limits the quality of life of affected women. This pathology affects 10% of reproductive-age women, although the prevalence in those patients experiencing pain, infertility or both is as high as 35%-50%. Endometriosis is characterized by endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, primarily on the pelvic peritoneum, ovaries and the pouch of Douglas. Despite extensive research endeavours, a unifying theory regarding the exact etiopathogenic mechanism of this high prevalent and incapacitating condition is still lacking, although it has been suggested that epigenetics could be involved. MicroRNAs (miRNAs), one of the epigenetic players, are small non-coding RNAs that can act as post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression, reducing the expression of their target mRNAs either inhibiting its translation or promoting its degradation. MiRNA expression profiles are specific of tissue and cell type. Abnormal miRNA expression has been described in different pathological conditions, such as a myriad of oncological, cardiovascular and inflammatory diseases and gynecological pathologies. In endometriosis, miRNA expression patterns of eutopic endometrium from patients and control women and from different endometriotic lesions have been described. These small non-coding molecules have become attractive candidates as novel biomarkers for an early non-invasive diagnosis of the disease, which could suppose a valuable benefit to the patients in terms of improvement of prognosis and reduction of the ratio of recurrence. In this systematic review we will focus on the role of miRNAs in the pathophisiology of endometriosis.

miRNAs Regulation and Its Role as Biomarkers in Endometriosis

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs (18-22 nt) that function as modulators of gene expression. Since their discovery in 1993 in C. elegans, our knowledge about their biogenesis, function, and mechanism of action has increased enormously, especially in recent years, with the development of deep-sequencing technologies. New biogenesis pathways and sources of miRNAs are changing our concept about these molecules. The study of the miRNA contribution to pathological states is a field of great interest in research. Different groups have reported the implication of miRNAs in pathologies such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and gynecological diseases. It is also well-known that miRNAs are present in biofluids (plasma, serum, urine, semen, and menstrual blood) and have been proposed as ideal candidates as disease biomarkers. The goal of this review is to highlight the current knowledge in the field of miRNAs with a special emphasis to their role in endometriosis and the newest investigations addressing the use of miRNAs as biomarkers for this gynecological disease.

Urinary 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 simple non-invasive or minimally-invasive tests available in clinical practice that accurately diagnoses endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES

1. To provide summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of urinary biomarkers for the diagnosis of 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.Urinary biomarkers were evaluated as replacement tests for surgical diagnosis and as triage tests to inform decisions to undertake surgery for endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

The searches were not restricted to particular study design, language or publication dates. We searched the following databases to 20 April - 31 July 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP and ClinicalTrials.gov (trial register). MEDION, DARE, and PubMed were also searched to identify reviews and guidelines as reference sources of potentially relevant studies. Recently published papers not yet indexed in the major databases were also sought. The search strategy incorporated words in the title, abstract, text words across the record and the medical subject headings (MeSH) and was modified for each database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size were considered, which 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). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of one or more urinary biomarkers with surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies involving 646 participants, most of which were of poor methodological quality. The urinary biomarkers were evaluated either in a specific phase of menstrual cycle or irrespective of the cycle phase. Five studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of four urinary biomarkers for endometriosis, including three biomarkers distinguishing women with and without endometriosis (enolase 1 (NNE); vitamin D binding protein (VDBP); and urinary peptide profiling); and one biomarker (cytokeratin 19 (CK 19)) showing no significant difference between the two groups. All of these biomarkers were assessed in small individual studies and could not be statistically evaluated in a meaningful way. None of the biomarkers met the criteria for a replacement test or a triage test. Three studies evaluated three biomarkers that did not differentiate women with endometriosis from disease-free controls.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to recommend any urinary biomarker for use as a replacement or triage test in clinical practice for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Several urinary biomarkers may have diagnostic potential, but require further evaluation before being introduced into routine clinical practice. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis, and diagnosis of endometriosis using urinary biomarkers should only be undertaken in a research setting.

How to Develop an Electronic Clinical Endometriosis Research File Integrated in Clinical Practice

Endometriosis is associated with a range of pelvic-abdominal pain symptoms and infertility. It is a chronic disease that can have a significant impact on various aspects of women's lives, including their social and sexual relationships, work, and study. Despite several international guidelines on the management of endometriosis, there is a wide variety of clinical practice in the management of endometriosis, resulting in many women receiving delayed or suboptimal care. In this paper we discuss the possibilities and benefits of using electronic health records for clinical research in the field of endometriosis. The development of a wide range of clinical software for electronic patient records has made the registration of large datasets feasible and the integration of research files and clinical files possible. Integration of global standards on registration of endometriosis care in electronic health records could improve reporting of research data and facilitate the execution of large, multicentre randomized trials on the management of endometriosis. These highly needed trials could bring us the evidence needed for the optimisation of management of women with endometriosis.

Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis

Endometriosis is histologically characterized by the displacement of endometrial tissue to extrauterine locations including the pelvic peritoneum, ovaries, and bowel. An important cause of infertility and pelvic pain, the individual and global socioeconomic burden of endometriosis is significant. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of the condition. However, the invasive nature of surgery, coupled with the lack of a laboratory biomarker for the disease, results in a mean latency of 7–11 years from onset of symptoms to definitive diagnosis. Unfortunately, the delay in diagnosis may have significant consequences in terms of disease progression. The discovery of a sufficiently sensitive and specific biomarker for the nonsurgical detection of endometriosis promises earlier diagnosis and prevention of deleterious sequelae and represents a clear research priority. In this review, we describe and discuss the current status of biomarkers of endometriosis in plasma, urine, and endometrium.

The Impact of Endometriosis across the Lifespan of Women: Foreseeable Research and Therapeutic Prospects

In addition to estrogen dependence, endometriosis is characterized by chronic pelvic inflammation. The impact of the chronic pelvic inflammatory state on other organ systems and women's health is unclear. Endometriosis associated chronic inflammation and potential adverse health effects across the lifespan render it imperative for renewed research vigor into the identification of novel biomarkers of disease and therapeutic options. Herein we propose a number of opportunities for research and development of new therapeutics to address the unmet needs in the treatment of endometriosis per se and its ancillary risks for other diseases in women across the lifespan.

Diagnostic potential of peritoneal fluid biomarkers of endometriosis

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stroma outside the uterus, in different parts of the peritoneal cavity. It affects up to 10% of reproductive-age women and up to 50% of women with infertility. Surgical diagnosis of endometriosis is still the gold standard, with no diagnostic biomarkers available. Medical therapies target the symptoms and not the disease itself, and surgical treatment cannot prevent recurrence. As peritoneal fluid reflects the altered peritoneal microenvironment of endometriosis patients, it can provide a wealth of information on pathophysiological processes and potential biomarkers. This report reviews the molecular biomarkers identified in peritoneal fluid over the last 5 years and discusses their potential applications for diagnosis, prognosis and drug therapy.

Improving Concordance in Environmental Epidemiology: A Three-Part Proposal

In observational research, evidence is usually derived from multiple studies, and any single result is rarely considered sufficient for public health decision making. Despite more than five decades of research and thousands of studies published, the ability to draw robust conclusions regarding the presence or absence of causal links between specific environmental exposures and human health remains limited. To develop policies that are protective of public health and can withstand scrutiny, agencies need to rely on investigations of satisfactory quality that follow sufficiently concordant protocols in terms of exposure assessment, outcome ascertainment, data analysis, and reporting of results. Absent such concordance, the ability of environmental epidemiology studies to inform decision making is greatly diminished. Systems and tools are proposed here to improve concordance among environmental epidemiology studies. Specifically, working systems in place in other fields of research are critically examined and used as guidelines to develop analogous policies and procedures for environmental epidemiology. A three-part path forward toward more concordant, transparent, and readily accessible environmental epidemiology evidence that parallels ongoing efforts in medical research is proposed. The three parts address methods for improving quality and accessibility of systematic reviews, access to information on ongoing and completed studies, and principles for reporting. The goals are to increase the value of epidemiological research in public health decision making and to stimulate discussions around solutions proposed herein.

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project: IV. Tissue collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research

OBJECTIVE

To harmonize standard operating procedures (SOPs) and standardize the recording of associated data for collection, processing, and storage of human tissues relevant to endometriosis.

DESIGN

An international collaboration involving 34 clinical/academic centers and three industry collaborators from 16 countries on five continents.

SETTING

In 2013, two workshops were conducted followed by global consultation, bringing together 54 leaders in endometriosis research and sample processing from around the world.

PATIENT(S)

None.

INTERVENTION(S)

Consensus SOPs were based on: 1) systematic comparison of SOPs from 24 global centers collecting tissue samples from women with and without endometriosis on a medium or large scale (publication on >100 cases); 2) literature evidence where available, or consultation with laboratory experts otherwise; and 3) several global consultation rounds.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Standard recommended and minimum required SOPs for tissue collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research.

RESULT(S)

We developed "recommended standard" and "minimum required" SOPs for the collection, processing, and storage of ectopic and eutopic endometrium, peritoneum, and myometrium, and a biospecimen data collection form necessary for interpretation of sample-derived results.

CONCLUSION(S)

The EPHect SOPs allow endometriosis research centers to decrease variability in tissue-based results, facilitating between-center comparisons and collaborations. The procedures are also relevant to research into other gynecologic conditions involving endometrium, myometrium, and peritoneum. The consensus SOPs are based on the best available evidence; areas with limited evidence are identified as requiring further pilot studies. The SOPs will be reviewed based on investigator feedback and through systematic triannual follow-up. Updated versions will be made available at: http://endometriosisfoundation.org/ephect.

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: II. Clinical and covariate phenotype data collection in endometriosis research

OBJECTIVE

To harmonize the collection of nonsurgical clinical and epidemiologic data relevant to endometriosis research, allowing large-scale collaboration.

DESIGN

An international collaboration involving 34 clinical/academic centers and three industry collaborators from 16 countries on five continents.

SETTING

In 2013, two workshops followed by global consultation, bringing together 54 leaders in endometriosis research.

PATIENTS

None.

INTERVENTION(S)

Development of a self-administered endometriosis patient questionnaire (EPQ), based on [1] systematic comparison of questionnaires from eight centers that collect data from endometriosis cases (and controls/comparison women) on a medium to large scale (publication on >100 cases); [2] literature evidence; and [3] several global consultation rounds.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Standard recommended and minimum required questionnaires to capture detailed clinical and covariate data.

RESULT(S)

The standard recommended (EPHect EPQ-S) and minimum required (EPHect EPQ-M) questionnaires contain questions on pelvic pain, subfertility and menstrual/reproductive history, hormone/medication use, medical history, and personal information.

CONCLUSION(S)

The EPQ captures the basic set of patient characteristics and exposures considered by the WERF EPHect Working Group to be most critical for the advancement of endometriosis research, but is also relevant to other female conditions with similar risk factors and/or symptomatology. The instruments will be reviewed based on feedback from investigators, and-after a first review after 1 year-triannually through systematic follow-up surveys. Updated versions will be made available through http://endometriosisfoundation.org/ephect.

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project: I. Surgical phenotype data collection in endometriosis research

Objective

To standardize the recording of surgical phenotypic information on endometriosis and related sample collections obtained at laparoscopy, allowing large-scale collaborative research into the condition.

Design

An international collaboration involving 34 clinical/academic centers and three industry collaborators from 16 countries.

Setting

Two workshops were conducted in 2013, bringing together 54 clinical, academic, and industry leaders in endometriosis research and management worldwide.

Patient(s)

None.

Intervention(s)

A postsurgical scoring sheet containing general and gynecological patient and procedural information, extent of disease, the location and type of endometriotic lesion, and any other findings was developed during several rounds of review. Comments and any systematic surgical data collection tools used in the reviewers' centers were incorporated.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

The development of a standard recommended (SSF) and minimum required (MSF) form to collect data on the surgical phenotype of endometriosis.

Result(s)

SSF and MSF include detailed descriptions of lesions, modes of procedures and sample collection, comorbidities, and potential residual disease at the end of surgery, along with previously published instruments such as the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Endometriosis Fertility Index classification tools for comparison and validation.

Conclusion(s)

This is the first multicenter, international collaboration between academic centers and industry addressing standardization of phenotypic data collection for a specific disease. The Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project SSF and MSF are essential tools to increase our understanding of the pathogenesis of endometriosis by allowing large-scale collaborative research into the condition.