Copeptin is associated with the severity of endometriosis

Emerging Trends in Nanotechnology for Endometriosis: Diagnosis to Therapy

Endometriosis, an incurable gynecological disease that causes abnormal growth of uterine-like tissue outside the uterine cavity, leads to pelvic pain and infertility in millions of individuals. Endometriosis can be treated with medicine and surgery, but recurrence and comorbidities impair quality of life. In recent years, nanoparticle (NP)-based therapy has drawn global attention, notably in medicine. Studies have shown that NPs could revolutionize conventional therapeutics and imaging. Researchers aim to enhance the prognosis of endometriosis patients with less invasive and more effective NP-based treatments. This study evaluates this potential paradigm shift in endometriosis management, exploring NP-based systems for improved treatments and diagnostics. Insights into nanotechnology applications, including gene therapy, photothermal therapy, immunotherapy, and magnetic hyperthermia, offering a theoretical reference for the clinical use of nanotechnology in endometriosis treatment, are discussed in this review.

An integrated multi-tissue approach for endometriosis candidate biomarkers: a systematic review

Biomarker identification could help in deciphering endometriosis pathophysiology in addition to their use in the development of non invasive diagnostic and prognostic approaches, that are essential to greatly improve patient care. Despite extensive efforts, no single potential biomarker or combination has been clinically validated for endometriosis.Many studies have investigated endometriosis-associated biological markers in specific tissues, but an integrative approach across tissues is lacking. The aim of this review is to propose a comprehensive overview of identified biomarkers based on tissue or biological compartment, while taking into account endometriosis phenotypes (superficial, ovarian or deep, or rASRM stages), menstrual cycle phases, treatments and symptoms.We searched PubMed and Embase databases for articles matching the following criteria: 'endometriosis' present in the title and the associated term 'biomarkers' found as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms or in all fields. We restricted to publications in English and on human populations. Relevant articles published between 01 January 2005 (when endometriosis phenotypes start to be described in papers) and 01 September 2022 were critically analysed and discussed.Four hundred forty seven articles on endometriosis biomarkers that included a control group without endometriosis and provided specific information on endometriosis phenotypes are included in this review. Presence of information or adjustment controlling for menstrual cycle phase, symptoms and treatments is highlighted, and the results are further summarized by biological compartment. The 9 biological compartments studied for endometriosis biomarker research are in order of frequency: peripheral blood, eutopic endometrium, peritoneal fluid, ovaries, urine, menstrual blood, saliva, feces and cervical mucus. Adjustments of results on disease phenotypes, cycle phases, treatments and symptoms are present in 70%, 29%, 3% and 6% of selected articles, respectively. A total of 1107 biomarkers were identified in these biological compartments. Of these, 74 were found in several biological compartments by at least two independent research teams and only 4 (TNF-a, MMP-9, TIMP-1 and miR-451) are detected in at least 3 tissues with cohorts of 30 women or more.Integrative analysis is a crucial step to highlight potential pitfalls behind the lack of success in the search for clinically relevant endometriosis biomarkers, and to illuminate the physiopathology of this disease.

Crimson clues: advancing endometriosis detection and management with novel blood biomarkers

Endometriosis is an inflammatory condition affecting approximately 10% of the female-born population. Despite its prevalence, the lack of noninvasive biomarkers has contributed to an established global diagnostic delay. The intricate pathophysiology of this enigmatic disease may leave signatures in the blood, which, when detected, can be used as noninvasive biomarkers. This review provides an update on how investigators are utilizing the established disease pathways and innovative methodologies, including genome-wide association studies, next-generation sequencing, and machine learning, to unravel the clues left in the blood to develop blood biomarkers. Many blood biomarkers show promise in the discovery phase, but because of a lack of standardized and robust methodologies, they rarely progress to the development stages. However, we are now seeing biomarkers being validated with high diagnostic accuracy and improvements in standardization protocols, providing promise for the future of endometriosis blood biomarkers.

Copeptin (CTproAVP) - A Biomarker of a Circulatory Impairment in Liver Transplant Recipients? A Prospective, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Copeptin, an easily measured and stable surrogate marker of arginine vasopressin, is a biomarker of a homeostasis disorder and a circulatory impairment in a wide spectrum of morbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of copeptin as a biomarker of a circulatory impairment in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study. Blood samples were obtained from 38 patients undergoing LT. Serum copeptin level was measured by means of a sandwich immunoassay pre-, intra-, and postoperatively up to 21 days after the operation.

RESULTS

The mean concentration of copeptin remained in the range of values slightly below 1000 pg/mL during the analyzed observation period and remained higher than the values observed in healthy individuals. Intraoperative and immediately postoperative copeptin levels did not correlate with hemodynamic parameters. There was also no correlation between preoperative copeptin levels (C1) and preoperative Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, serum creatinine levels, plasma transaminase levels, international normalized ratio, or hematocrit (Spearman ρ, P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative copeptin levels are elevated in most LT recipients and remain elevated for 21 days after surgery. There was no correlation between the concentration of copeptin and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score or the cause of a hepatic failure. It cannot be concluded that copeptin is a biomarker of a circulatory impairment in patients with transplanted liver in the perioperative period. The secretion of vasopressin, as measured by copeptin concentration during and after LT, requires further study.

Current biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis

A clinically reliable non-invasive test for endometriosis is expected to reduce the diagnostic delay. Although varieties of biomarkers have been investigated for decades, and cancer antigen-125, cancer antigen-199, interleukin-6, and urocortin were the most studied ones among hundreds of biomarkers, no clinically reliable biomarkers have been confirmed so far. Some emerging technologies including “omics” technologies, molecular imaging techniques, and microRNAs are promising in solving these challenges, but their utility to detect endometriosis has yet to be verified. New combinations of researched indicators or other non-invasive methods and further exploration of the emerging technologies may be new targets and future research hotspots for non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. In conclusion, researches of biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis are still ongoing and may benefit from novel molecular biology, bioinformatics methods and a combination of more diverse monitoring methods. Though it will be a daunting task, the identification of a specific set of diagnostic biomarkers will undoubtedly improve the status of endometriosis.

Non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis and moderate-severe endometriosis with serum CA125, endocan, YKL-40, and copeptin quadruple panel

Considering the complex pathogenesis of endometriosis, which is associated with many cellular or molecular processes, such as proliferation, angiogenesis, inflammation, we evaluated the diagnostic value of a quadruple panel of serum markers CA125, endocan, YKL-40 and copeptin, for the prediction of endometriosis and moderate - severe endometriosis. Seventy women with endometriosis and 70 women without endometriosis were evaluated. Serum CA125, endocan, copeptin and YKL-40 levels were significantly increased in women with endometriosis compared to the women without endometriosis and in the minimal - mild endometriosis group compared to the no-endometriosis group. YKL-40, endocan and copeptin levels were significantly increased in the moderate - severe endometriosis group compared to the mild -moderate endometriosis group but the difference in CA125 levels remained non-significant. The quadruple panel score had an AUC of 0.954, a sensitivity of 96.5% and specificity of 84.6% for prediction of moderate - severe endometriosis. Zero or one positive marker had a sensitivity of 91.4% and specificity of 88.57% to rule out endometriosis. In conclusion, a quadruple panel of serum markers-CA125, endocan, YKL-40, and copeptin may be beneficial for the diagnosis of endometriosis and especially moderate - severe endometriosis. Further studies are needed to prove the efficacy of this panel.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Many serum markers including CA125 have been investigated so far and suggested to be associated with endometriosis. However, none of these markers is sensitive and specific enough to diagnose endometriosis.What do the results of this study add? A quadruple panel score (CA125, endocan, YKL-4 and copeptin) had an AUC of 0.954, a sensitivity of 96.5% and specificity of 84.6% for prediction of moderate - severe endometriosis.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? A high score may be beneficial to warn the surgeon about the risk of moderate to severe endometriosis if the patient will be operated anyway. A negative test of the quadruple panel may show high odds that there is no endometriosis which may prevent unnecessary surgery.

A novel non-invasive molecular biomarker in ovarian endometriosis: estrogen-related receptor α

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore whether estrogen-related receptors α (ERRα) can prognosticate the occurrence and development of ovarian endometriosis (EMs) as a non-invasive biomarker.

METHODS

The ectopic and its' correspond eutopic endometria from 47 patients with ovarian EMs and the control normal endometria from 32 cases were collected and detected the mRNA expression of ERRα by RT-qPCR. The serum protein of ERRα were tested by ELISA. The menstrual cycle, ovarian cyst sizes, relative clinical tumour markers, such as CA125, CA19-9 and HE-4, and other demographic data were also involved into analysis in these patients by SPSS 22.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS

The ERRα mRNA expression in ectopic endometria were significantly lower than it in eutopic endometria (P < 0.05) and the normal endometria (P < 0.05). Similarly, the serum ERRα levels in patients with EMs were significantly lower than it in control group (P < 0.01). Moreover, the serum ERRα levels were decreasing with the increasing of the pathological stages and ovarian cyst sizes. While, the serum CA125, CA19-9, CA125/ERRα ratio and CA19-9/ERRα ratio in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The expression of ERRα is correlated with the development of ovarian EMs pathological stages and ovarian cyst sizes and can be used as a novel and non-invasive biomarker for evaluating the progression of ovarian EMs.

Malignant Transformation and Associated Biomarkers of Ovarian Endometriosis: A Narrative Review

This review focuses on pathogenesis of endometriosis, its possible biomarkers and role in endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer. We analyzed various databases to obtain new insights, theories, and biomarkers associated with endometriosis. There are several theories of endometriosis development and biomarker changes including atypical forms. A number of studies have attempted to establish specific, reliable biomarkers to help diagnose endometriosis and endometriosis-associated diseases on the basis of different pathogenetic pathways. Nevertheless, despite intensive research extending even to the molecular level, the origin, natural history, malignant transformation, and laboratory management of endometriosis and related diseases are not yet clearly defined. Therefore, early laboratory diagnoses of endometriosis, its atypical form, and endometriosis-associated ovarian tumors are important problems that require further study in the context of advanced therapeutic strategies to provide maximal health benefits to patients.

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.

CYFRA 21-1 and Placental Growth Factor as Screening Markers for Endometriosis

Background

This study evaluated the performance of serum CYFRA 21-1 and placental growth factor (PIGF) as screening markers for endometriosis.

Material/Methods

In this prospective study included 81 female patients who underwent laparoscopy to treat benign ovarian tumors. Serum samples were obtained from all study patients before surgery. Serum marker levels, including CYFRA 21-1, PIGF, cancer antigen (CA)125, CA19-9, and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) were measured using a fluorescence immunoassay technique.

Results

Forty of the patients were diagnosed with endometriosis (the study group) and 41 women were diagnosed with other benign ovarian tumors (the control group). Mean serum CYFRA 21-1 and PIGF levels were not different between these 2 groups (P=0.179 and P=0.865, respectively). Elevated serum CA125 levels (>35 U/mL) and lower CYFRA 21-1 levels (≤2.29 ng/mL) were more frequently observed in the endometriosis study group than in the control group (P<0.0001, and P=048, respectively). High serum PIGF levels (>14.2 pg/mL) were observed in both groups (P=0.226). Mean serum CA19-9 levels and HE4 levels, as well as the ROMA (risk of ovarian malignancy Algorithm) score were similar between the 2 groups. Sensitivity (95.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (80.0%) of CYFRA 21-1 for diagnosing endometriosis were higher than those of CA125 (sensitivity 67.5%, NPV 74.5%) and PIGF (sensitivity 20.0%, NPV 53.6%). However, the specificity (PIGF 90.2%, CA125 92.7%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (PIGF 66.7%, CA125 87.1%) of PIGF and CA125 for diagnosing endometriosis were higher than those of CYFRA 21-1 (specificity 19.5%, PPV 53.5%).

Conclusions

CYFRA 21-1 and PIGF may be promising markers to identify patients with and without ovarian endometriosis.

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.

Diagnostic value of serum CA125, CA19-9 and CA15-3 in endometriosis: A meta-analysis

Aim

To evaluate the diagnostic value of serum cancer antigen (CA)125, CA19-9 and CA15-3 concentrations in endometriosis.

Methods

Case–control studies evaluating CA125, CA19-9 and CA15-3 and endometriosis, published between January 2000 and November 2014 were retrieved from PubMed® and Google Scholar. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were carried out by ethnicity and disease stage (early, stage I/II; advanced, stage III/IV).

Results

The analysis included 12 case–control studies (963 cases, 855 controls). CA125 was associated with endometriosis in the overall population (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.72, 0.92), Caucasian subgroup (SMD 1.08, 95% CI 0.96, 1.19), and early (SMD 1.20, 95% CI 0.93, 1.48) or advanced disease (SMD 1.29, 95% CI 1.04, 1.55). CA19-9 was associated with endometriosis in the overall population (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.24, 0.72), Caucasian subgroup (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.07, 0.55), Asian subgroup (SMD 9.65, 95% CI 7.88, 11.42) and advanced disease (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.34, 0.87). CA15-3 was significantly associated with advanced disease (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.09, 0.84).

Conclusions

Serum CA125 and CA19-9 may represent useful biomarkers for the noninvasive diagnosis of 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.

Copeptin testing in acute myocardial infarction: ready for routine use?

Suspected acute myocardial infarction is one of the leading causes of admission to emergency departments. In the last decade, biomarkers revolutionized the management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. Besides their pivotal assistance in timely diagnosis, biomarkers provide additional information for risk stratification. Cardiac troponins I and T are the most sensitive and specific markers of acute myocardial injury. Nonetheless, in order to overcome the remaining limitations of these markers, novel candidate biomarkers sensitive to early stage of disease are being extensively investigated. Among them, copeptin, a stable peptide derived from the precursor of vasopressin, emerged as a promising biomarker for the evaluation of suspected acute myocardial infarction. In this review, we summarize the currently available evidence for the usefulness of copeptin in the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction in comparison with routine biomarkers.