Elevated vascular endothelia growth factor-A in the serum and peritoneal fluid of patients with endometriosis

Biomarkers of endometriosis

Endometriosis is one of the most severe female reproductive disorders, affecting 6-10% of women between 18 and 35. It is a gynaecological condition where endometrial tissue develops and settles outside the uterus. The aetiology of endometriosis is primarily influenced by genetic, epigenetic, and non-genetic variables, making it highly challenging to create a therapeutic therapy explicitly targeting the ectopic tissue. The delay in the treatment is due to the limitations in the diagnostic approaches, which are restricted to invasive techniques such as laparoscopy or laparotomy. This accords to 70% of the women being diagnosed at later stages. By understanding the subject, several treatment medications have been produced to lessen the disease's symptoms. Nevertheless, endometriosis cannot be permanently cured. A viable or persuasive standard screening test for endometriosis must be utilized in a clinical context. A helpful assessment method for the early identification of endometriosis could be biomarkers. A major research priority is the identification of a biomarker that is sensitive and specific enough for detecting endometriosis. The present article has reviewed studies published on the expression of biomarkers of endometriosis. It outlines various biomarkers from different sample types, such as serum/plasma and urine, in addition to tissue. This would provide a non-invasive approach to diagnosing the disease at the initial stages without any harmful repercussions. Future high-throughput advances in science and technology are anticipated to result in the creation of a potent remedy for endometriosis. To achieve successful outcomes, it is necessary to research the discussed biomarkers that demonstrate substantial results extensively.

Nonhormonal therapy for endometriosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, pilot study of cabergoline versus norethindrone acetate

Objective

To estimate the efficacy and safety of a novel nonhormonal therapeutic agent, cabergoline, compared with that of the standard clinical therapy, norethindrone acetate (NETA), for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain in young women with endometriosis.

Design

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study.

Setting

Tertiary care center.

Patient(s)

Women (n = 9) with surgically confirmed endometriosis.

Intervention(s)

A random, double-blind assignment to either NETA (5 mg/day) + placebo twice weekly or cabergoline (0.5 mg) twice weekly + placebo daily for 6 months.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

We collected the measures of pelvic pain and laboratory parameters every 3 months.

Result(s)

We observed a decrease in pain scores and increase in pain relief in women randomized to receive cabergoline, who appeared to show similar or more improvements than women treated with NETA. The serum measures of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 declined over 6 months in those who received cabergoline. Cabergoline was well tolerated, and no serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion(s)

Safe, effective adjunct treatments are lacking for patients with endometriosis who do not respond to standard care. Because the growth of endometriosis requires angiogenesis, blood vessel growth is an attractive therapeutic target. This pilot study suggests that cabergoline, a vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, is an effective therapeutic option for women with chronic pain due to endometriosis. Building upon this investigation, we will conduct larger, randomized trials of cabergoline, advancing research on the best treatments for endometriosis—particularly disease resistant to hormonal therapies.

Clinical Trial Registration Number

clinicaltrials.gov; registration number NCT02542410.

Basic mechanisms of vascularization in endometriosis and their clinical implications

BACKGROUND

Vascularization is a major hallmark in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. An increasing number of studies suggests that multiple mechanisms contribute to the vascularization of endometriotic lesions, including angiogenesis, vasculogenesis and inosculation.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

In this review, we provide an overview of the basic mechanisms of vascularization in endometriosis and give special emphasis on their future clinical implications in the diagnosis and therapy of the disease.

SEARCH METHODS

Literature searches were performed in PubMed for English articles with the key words 'endometriosis', 'endometriotic lesions', 'angiogenesis', 'vascularization', 'vasculogenesis', 'endothelial progenitor cells' and 'inosculation'. The searches included both animal and human studies. No restriction was set for the publication date.

OUTCOMES

The engraftment of endometriotic lesions is typically associated with angiogenesis, i.e. the formation of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones. This angiogenic process underlies the complex regulation by angiogenic growth factors and hormones, which activate intracellular pathways and associated signaling molecules. In addition, circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are mobilized from the bone marrow and recruited into endometriotic lesions, where they are incorporated into the endothelium of newly developing microvessels, referred to as vasculogenesis. Finally, preformed microvessels in shed endometrial fragments inosculate with the surrounding host microvasculature, resulting in a rapid blood supply to the ectopic tissue. These vascularization modes offer different possibilities for the establishment of novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Angiogenic growth factors and EPCs may serve as biomarkers for the diagnosis and classification of endometriosis. Blood vessel formation and mature microvessels in endometriotic lesions may be targeted by means of anti-angiogenic compounds and vascular-disrupting agents.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The establishment of vascularization-based approaches in the management of endometriosis still represents a major challenge. For diagnostic purposes, reliable angiogenic and vasculogenic biomarker panels exhibiting a high sensitivity and specificity must be identified. For therapeutic purposes, novel compounds selectively targeting the vascularization of endometriotic lesions without inducing severe side effects are required. Recent progress in the field of endometriosis research indicates that these goals may be achieved in the near future.

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.

Endoureterotomy is not a sufficient treatment for intrinsic ureteral endometriosis

Aim

To investigate whether intrinsic ureteral endometriosis could be managed by laser endoureterotomy.

Material and methods

We studied retrospectively 6 patients with intrinsic ureteral endometriosis who underwent laser endoureterotomy and reviewed their clinical data. Pathological sections of them have also been studied by immunohistochemistry for expressional levels of oestrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptors. Ten sections of normal endometrium were included as a control.

Results

Five patients had recurrence of ureteral stricture within 6 months postoperatively despite hormonal therapy for 3 to 6 months. One patient had recurrence 8 months after endoureterotomy. Two patients had secondary surgery for ureteroureterostomy and pathology confirmed recurrence of endometriosis. Immunohistochemistry revealed decreased ER and PR expression compared to the control.

Conclusions

Endoureterotomy with hormonal therapy may not be suitable for ureteral endometriosis due to inadequate cutting and expressional change of ER and PR.