A Multicenter International Temporal and External Validation Study of the Ultrasound-based Endometriosis Staging System

Non-Invasive Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis of Pelvic Deep Endometriosis and Endometriosis Classification Systems: An International Consensus Statement

The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group, the European Endometriosis League (EEL), the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE), the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) elected an international, multidisciplinary panel of gynecological surgeons, sonographers and radiologists, including a steering committee, which searched the literature for relevant articles in order to review the literature and provide evidence-based and clinically relevant statements on the use of imaging techniques for non-invasive diagnosis and classification of pelvic deep endometriosis. Preliminary statements were drafted based on review of the relevant literature. Following two rounds of revisions and voting orchestrated by chairs of the participating societies, consensus statements were finalized. A final version of the document was then resubmitted to the society chairs for approval. Twenty statements were drafted, of which 14 reached strong and three moderate agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and society chairs and rephrased, followed by an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 14 statements had strong and five statements moderate agreement, with one statement left in equipoise. This consensus work aims to guide clinicians involved in treating women with suspected endometriosis during patient assessment, counseling and planning of surgical treatment strategies.

Non-invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement

The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group, the European Endometriosis League (EEL), the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE), the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) elected an international, multidisciplinary panel of gynecological surgeons, sonographers and radiologists, including a steering committee, which searched the literature for relevant articles in order to review the literature and provide evidence-based and clinically relevant statements on the use of imaging techniques for non-invasive diagnosis and classification of pelvic deep endometriosis. Preliminary statements were drafted based on review of the relevant literature. Following two rounds of revisions and voting orchestrated by chairs of the participating societies, consensus statements were finalized. A final version of the document was then resubmitted to the society chairs for approval. Twenty statements were drafted, of which 14 reached strong and three moderate agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and society chairs and rephrased, followed by an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 14 statements had strong and five statements moderate agreement, with one statement left in equipoise. This consensus work aims to guide clinicians involved in treating women with suspected endometriosis during patient assessment, counseling and planning of surgical treatment strategies. © 2024 The Authors. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, by Universa Press, by The International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists and by Elsevier B.V.

Inter-observer reproducibility of the 2021 AAGL Endometriosis Classification

BACKGROUND

Inter-observer agreement for the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has not been described. Its predecessor staging system, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM), has historically demonstrated poor inter-observer agreement.

AIMS

We aimed to determine the inter-observer agreement performance of the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system, and compare this with the rASRM staging system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A database of 317 patients with coded surgical data was retrospectively analysed. Three independent observers allocated AAGL surgical stages (1-4), twice. Observers made their own interpretation of how to apply the tool in the first staging allocation. Consensus rules were then developed for a second staging allocation.

RESULTS

First staging allocation: odds ratio (OR) (and 95% CI) for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 8.08 (5.12-12.76). Observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 12.98 (7.99-21.11) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.61 (1.03-2.51). This represents poor agreement. Second staging allocation (after consensus): OR for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 1.14 (0.64-2.03), observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.81 (0.99-3.28) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.59 (0.87-2.89). This represents good agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that in its current format the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has poor inter-observer agreement, not superior to the rASRM staging system. However, performance improved when additional measures were taken to simplify and clarify areas of ambiguity in interpreting the staging system.

Non-invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement†,‡

The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group, the European Endometriosis League (EEL), the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE), the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) elected an international, multidisciplinary panel of gynecological surgeons, sonographers and radiologists, including a steering committee, which searched the literature for relevant articles in order to review the literature and provide evidence-based and clinically relevant statements on the use of imaging techniques for non-invasive diagnosis and classification of pelvic deep endometriosis. Preliminary statements were drafted based on a review of the relevant literature. Following two rounds of revisions and voting orchestrated by chairs of the participating societies, consensus statements were finalized. A final version of the document was then resubmitted to the society chairs for approval. Twenty statements were drafted, of which 14 reached strong and three moderate agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and society chairs and rephrased, followed by an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 14 statements had strong and five statements moderate agreement, with one statement left in equipoise. This consensus work aims to guide clinicians involved in treating women with suspected endometriosis during patient assessment, counselling and planning of surgical treatment strategies.

Non-invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement. Hum Reprod Open 2024;2024:hoae029. [PMID: 38812884 PMCID: PMC11134890 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoae029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) and International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group, the European Endometriosis League (EEL), the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), ESHRE, the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE), the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) elected an international, multidisciplinary panel of gynecological surgeons, sonographers, and radiologists, including a steering committee, which searched the literature for relevant articles in order to review the literature and provide evidence-based and clinically relevant statements on the use of imaging techniques for non-invasive diagnosis and classification of pelvic deep endometriosis. Preliminary statements were drafted based on review of the relevant literature. Following two rounds of revisions and voting orchestrated by chairs of the participating societies, consensus statements were finalized. A final version of the document was then resubmitted to the society chairs for approval. Twenty statements were drafted, of which 14 reached strong and three moderate agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and society chairs and rephrased, followed by an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 14 statements had strong and five statements moderate agreement, with one statement left in equipoise. This consensus work aims to guide clinicians involved in treating women with suspected endometriosis during patient assessment, counselling, and planning of surgical treatment strategies.

Noninvasive diagnostic imaging for endometriosis part 1: a systematic review of recent developments in ultrasound, combination imaging, and artificial intelligence

Endometriosis affects 1 in 9 women and those assigned female at birth. However, it takes 6.4 years to diagnose using the conventional standard of laparoscopy. Noninvasive imaging enables a timelier diagnosis, reducing diagnostic delay as well as the risk and expense of surgery. This review updates the exponentially increasing literature exploring the diagnostic value of endometriosis specialist transvaginal ultrasound (eTVUS), combinations of eTVUS and specialist magnetic resonance imaging, and artificial intelligence. Concentrating on literature that emerged after the publication of the IDEA consensus in 2016, we identified 6192 publications and reviewed 49 studies focused on diagnosing endometriosis using emerging imaging techniques. The diagnostic performance of eTVUS continues to improve but there are still limitations. eTVUS reliably detects ovarian endometriomas, shows high specificity for deep endometriosis and should be considered diagnostic. However, a negative scan cannot preclude endometriosis as eTVUS shows moderate sensitivity scores for deep endometriosis, with the sonographic evaluation of superficial endometriosis still in its infancy. The fast-growing area of artificial intelligence in endometriosis detection is still evolving, but shows great promise, particularly in the area of combined multimodal techniques. We finalize our commentary by exploring the implications of practice change for surgeons, sonographers, radiologists, and fertility specialists. Direct benefits for endometriosis patients include reduced diagnostic delay, better access to targeted therapeutics, higher quality operative procedures, and improved fertility treatment plans.

[Performance of an Ultrasound Based Endometriosis Staging System (UBESS) for predicting rectal involvement and type of surgical procedure in patients with digestive endometriosis]

OBJECTIVE

Preoperative assessment of rectal damage in digestive endometriosis requires rectal endoscopic ultra-sonography an invasive exam that is not well received by the patients. A standardized approach using an Ultrasound-Based Endometriosis Staging System (UBESS)could be an interesting tool in this indication. This article aims to evaluate the performance of UBESS in the prediction of rectal involvement and the type of surgical procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This monocentric retrospective study was conducted on patients with rectal endometriosis who underwent a curative surgical procedure, evaluated by UBESS ultrasound between January 2016 and December 2019 at the Poissy referral centre. The main analysis of the study was to assess the adequacy of the UBESS ultrasound stage, the presence of rectal involvement during surgery and the surgical technique required. The secondary objective was to determine the correlation between UBESS stages and RCOG levels of surgical difficulty.

RESULTS

A total of one hundred and twenty-two patients were included and one hundred were analysed. Of these, thirty-nine had rectal involvement. There was a statistically significant association between the UBESS stage and the presence of a digestive lesion(P<0.0001). The ultrasound's parameters of thickness(P=0.0007), width(P=0.0082) and volume(P=0.0013) of the digestive lesion were significantly correlated with the extent of the surgical procedure. The correlation between the UBESS and RCOG classifications was very weak.

CONCLUSION

UBESS is a powerful diagnostic tool for digestive damage allowing to give clear information to patients before surgery and optimizing the management plan of the surgery.

External Validation of the "2021 AAGL Endometriosis Classification": A Retrospective Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Externally validate the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) staging system against surgical complexity and compare diagnostic accuracy with revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) stage, as was done in original publication.

DESIGN

Retrospective, diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING

Multicenter (Sydney, Australia).

PATIENTS

A total of 317 patients (January 2016-October 2021) were used in the final analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

A database of patients with coded surgical data was analyzed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Three independent observers assigned an AAGL surgical stage (1-4) as the index test and surgical complexity level (A-D) as the reference standard. Results from the most accurate of the 3 observers were used in the final analysis. The weighted kappa score for the overall performance of AAGL stage and rASRM to predict AAGL level was 0.48 and 0.48, respectively (no difference). This represents weaker agreement with AAGL level than was observed in the reference paper, which reported a weighted kappa of 0.62. Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) for stage 1 to predict level A was 98.5%, 64.3%, 66.3%, and 98.3%; stage 2 to predict level B 31.2%, 90.5%, 27.0%, and 92.1 %; stage 3 to predict level C 12.3%, 94.1%, 59.3%, and 60.7%; stage 4 to predict level D 95.65%, 88.10%, 38.60%, and 99.62%. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for A vs B/C/D (cut point 9) was 0.87, A/B vs C/D (cut point 16) was 0.78, and A/B/C vs D (cut point 22) was 0.94.

CONCLUSION

There was weak to moderate agreement between AAGL stage and AAGL surgical complexity level. Across all key indicators, the AAGL system did not perform as well in this external validation, nor did it outperform rASRM as it did in the reference paper. Results suggest the system is not generalizable.

Endometriosis: A multimodal imaging review

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized endometrial-like tissue present outside of the uterus, affecting approximately 10% of reproductive age women. It is associated with abdomino-pelvic pain, infertility and other non - gynecologic symptoms, making it a challenging diagnosis. Several guidelines have been developed by different international societies to diagnose and classify endometriosis, yet areas of controversy and uncertainty remains. Transvaginal ultrasound (TV-US) is the first-line imaging modality used to identify endometriosis due to its accessibility and cost-efficacy. Enhanced sonographic techniques are emerging as a dedicated technique to evaluate deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE), depending on the expertise of the sonographer as well as the location of the lesions. MRI is an ideal complementary modality to ultrasonography for pre-operative planning as it allows for a larger field-of-view when required and it has high levels of reproducibility and tolerability. Typically, endometriotic lesions appear hypoechoic on ultrasonography. On MRI, classical features include DIE T2 hypointensity, endometrioma T2 hypointensity and T1 hyperintensity, while superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE) is described as a small focus of T1 hyperintensity. Imaging has become a critical tool in the diagnosis, surveillance and surgical planning of endometriosis. This literature review is based mostly on studies from the last two decades and aims to provide a detailed overview of the imaging features of endometriosis as well as the advances and usefulness of different imaging modalities for this condition.

Advances in Imaging for Assessing Pelvic Endometriosis

In recent years, due to the development of standardized diagnostic protocols associated with an improvement in the associated technology, the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis using imaging is becoming a reality. In particular, transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance are today the two imaging techniques that can accurately identify the majority of the phenotypes of endometriosis. This review focuses not only on these most common imaging modalities but also on some additional radiological techniques that were proposed for rectosigmoid colon endometriosis, such as double-contrast barium enema, rectal endoscopic ultrasonography, multidetector computed tomography enema, computed tomography colonography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography with 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-estradiol.

Transvaginal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Assessment of Endometriosis-An Overview: How, Why, and When

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological disease, causing symptoms such as pelvic pain and infertility. Accurate diagnosis and assessment are often challenging. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS), along with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are the most common imaging modalities. In this narrative review, we present the evidence behind the role of TVS in the diagnosis and assessment of endometriosis. We recognize three forms of endometriosis: Ovarian endometriomas (OMAs) can be adequately assessed by transvaginal ultrasound. Superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SUP) is challenging to diagnose by either imaging modality. TVS, in the hands of appropriately trained clinicians, appears to be non-inferior to MRI in the diagnosis and assessment of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). The IDEA consensus standardized the terminology and offered a structured approach in the assessment of endometriosis by ultrasound. TVS can be used in the non-invasive staging of endometriosis using the available classification systems (rASRM, #ENZIAN). Given its satisfactory overall diagnostic accuracy, wide availability, and low cost, it should be considered as the first-line imaging modality in the diagnosis and assessment of endometriosis. Modifications to the original ultrasound technique can be employed on a case-by-case basis. Improved training and future advances in ultrasound technology are likely to further increase its diagnostic performance.

Diagnostic accuracy of sliding sign for detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement in women with suspected endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the sliding sign on transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) in detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement in patients with suspected endometriosis, using laparoscopy as the reference standard.

METHODS

A search for studies evaluating the role of the sliding sign in the assessment of pouch of Douglas obliteration and/or bowel involvement using laparoscopy as the reference standard published from January 2000 to October 2021 was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and SCOPUS databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Analyses were performed using MIDAS and METANDI commands in STATA.

RESULTS

A total of 334 citations were identified. Eight studies were included in the analysis, resulting in 938 and 963 patients available for analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the sliding sign for pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement, respectively. The mean prevalence of pouch of Douglas obliteration was 37% and the mean prevalence of bowel involvement was 23%. The pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio of the sliding sign on TVS for detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration were 88% (95% CI, 81-93%), 94% (95% CI, 91-96%), 15.3 (95% CI, 10.2-22.9), 0.12 (95% CI, 0.07-0.21) and 123 (95% CI, 62-244), respectively. The heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and low for specificity for detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration. The pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio of the sliding sign on TVS for detecting bowel involvement were 81% (95% CI, 64-91%), 95% (95% CI, 91-97%), 16.0 (95% CI, 9.0-28.6), 0.20 (95% CI, 0.10-0.40) and 81 (95% CI, 34-191), respectively. The heterogeneity for the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for bowel involvement was high.

CONCLUSION

The sliding sign on TVS has good diagnostic performance for predicting pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement in women with suspected endometriosis. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Effectiveness of ultrasound for endometriosis diagnosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endometriosis is a chronic benign gynaecological condition characterized by pelvic pain, subfertility and delay in diagnosis. There is an emerging philosophical shift from gold standard histopathological diagnosis through laparoscopy to establishing diagnosis through noninvasive imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ENZIAN classification system was updated in 2021 to be suitable for both diagnostic imaging and laparoscopy. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) in diagnosing endometriosis varies depending on location of the lesion. A recent international pilot study found that when ultrasound is performed in accordance with the IDEA consensus, a higher detection of deep endometriosis is seen, with an overall sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 79% compared with direct surgical visualization.

SUMMARY

Although ultrasound can detect adenomyosis, deep endometriosis and endometriomas, it is not possible to reliably detect superficial endometriosis. In the instance of a negative ultrasound with persistence of symptoms despite medical therapy, laparoscopy should be considered for diagnosis and treatment.

AN ULTRASOUND-BASED PREDICTION MODEL TO PREDICT URETEROLYSIS AT LAPAROSCOPIC ENDOMETRIOSIS SURGERY

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To develop a model, including clinical features and ultrasound findings, to predict the need for ureterolysis (i.e. dissection of the ureter) during laparoscopy for endometriosis.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study of patients who had transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) according to the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) consensus and subsequent laparoscopy +/- excision of endometriosis between January 2017 and February 2021 was conducted.

SETTING

Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital and Blue Mountains Hospital, New South Wales, Australia INTERVENTION: The demographic, clinical, TVS and intra-operative data were extracted through electronic clinical records.

MEASUREMENTS

Multi-categorical decision-tree and baseline models were built to choose the variables most correlated to the outcome under study. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed on the binary classification. Based on our results, we selected the variables performing with significant statistical differences (p-value < .05).

MAIN RESULTS

During the study period, 177 consecutive patients were recruited and divided into two subgroups, ureterolysis (51.4%) and and non-ureterolysis (48.6%). Ureterolysis was noted in 87.5% of patients in which the left ovary was immobile (p-value< .001), and in 82.5% in which the right ovary was fixed (p-value<.001). For patients with right uterosacral ligament (USL) deep endometriosis (DE), ureterolysis was performed on 96.2% (p-value< .001), and 64.6% (p-value= .043) for left USL DE. Among patients with bowel DE, the proportion of patients undergoing ureterolysis was 95.5% (p-value < .001). The prognostic variables utilized in the final model to predict ureterolysis included dyschezia, absence of ovarian mobility, presence of right or left USL DE and presence of bowel DE on TVS. According to the developed model, the baseline risk for performing ureterolysis is 20% in our sample. The overall model performance demonstrated an area under the ROC curve 0.82.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that it is possible to predict the need for ureterolysis with clinical and sonographic data. Furthermore, patients presenting with the combination of the variables of our model (dyschezia, ovarian immobility, USL and bowel DE lesions) have a high risk of ureterolysis. On the other hand, patients without these features have a low risk (approximately 20%) of needing ureterolysis.

'Seeing is believing': arguing for diagnostic laparoscopy as a diagnostic test for endometriosis

Endometriosis is a benign disease that can cause pain and infertility in women. Debate exists over how endometriosis should best be diagnosed. On one hand, endometriosis can be diagnosed by directly examining pelvic anatomy via a surgical procedure known as diagnostic laparoscopy. On the other hand, the disease can be diagnosed via non-surgical means such as using medical imaging, the symptoms described by the patient and whether the patient responds to non-surgical therapies such as medication. In this debate article, we argue in favour of diagnostic laparoscopy. We review the safety of the procedure, compare the ability of diagnostic laparoscopy vs medical imaging to detect endometriosis and consider the benefits of formally diagnosing or ruling out the condition.

Endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems: a review on the road to a universally accepted endometriosis classification. Hum Reprod Open 2021;2021:hoab025. [PMID: 34693032 PMCID: PMC8530712 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoab025]

STUDY QUESTION

Which endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published and validated for use in clinical practice?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated, in 46 studies, for the purpose for which they were developed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A systematic PUBMED literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarized.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific, and different, purposes. There still is no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating the different systems are summarized showing a discrepancy between the intended and the evaluated purpose, and a general lack of validation data confirming a correlation with pain symptoms or quality of life for any of the current systems. A few studies confirm the value of the ENZIAN system for surgical description of deep endometriosis. With regards to infertility, the endometriosis fertility index has been confirmed valid for its intended purpose.

LARGE SCALE DATA

NA.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The literature search was limited to PUBMED. Unpublished classification, staging or reporting systems, or those published in books were not considered.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes. This overview of existing systems is a first step in working toward a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The meetings and activities of the working group were funded by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and World Endometriosis Society. A.W.H. reports grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring, Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Standard Life, Consultancy fees from Roche Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nordic Pharma and Ferring, outside the submitted work. In addition, A.W.H. has a patent Serum biomarker for endometriosis pending. N.P.J. reports personal fees from Abbott, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Vifor Pharma, Roche Diagnostics, outside the submitted work; he is also President of the World Endometriosis Society and chair of the trust board. S.M. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche outside the submitted work. C.T. reports grants, non-financial support and other from Merck SA, non-financial support and other from Gedeon Richter, non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work and without private revenue. K.T.Z. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, MDNA Life Sciences, Roche Diagnostics Inc, Volition Rx, outside the submitted work; she is also a Board member (Secretary) of the World Endometriosis Society and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, Research Advisory Board member of Wellbeing of Women, UK (research charity), and Chair, Research Directions Working Group, World Endometriosis Society. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NA.

Endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems: a review on the road to a universally accepted endometriosis classification

Background

In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. However, endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems that have been published and validated for use in clinical practice have not been systematically reviewed up to now.

Objectives

The aim of the current review is to provide a historical overview of these different systems based on an assessment of published studies.

Materials and Methods

A systematic Pubmed literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarised.

Results

Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific and different purposes. There is still no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating different systems are summarised showing a discrepancy between the intended and the evaluated purpose, and a general lack of validation data confirming a correlation with pain symptoms or quality of life for any of the current systems. A few studies confirm the value of the Enzian system for surgical description of deep endometriosis. With regards to infertility, the endometriosis fertility index has been confirmed valid for its intended purpose.

Conclusions

Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated, in 46 studies, for the purpose for which they were developed. It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes.

What is new?

This overview of existing systems is a first step in working towards a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

Long-term follow-up of endometriosis surgery in Ontario: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological disease affecting approximately 10% of reproductive aged females and leads to decreased quality of life and productivity. Despite effective medical options, many women do require surgery for endometriosis. There is limited literature examining long term outcomes of endometriosis surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize the long-term outcomes, including recurrence of symptoms, fertility outcomes, and need for reoperation, of patients who underwent surgical management for endometriosis.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a population-based cohort study in which the universal coverage health database for the province of Ontario, Canada, was used to identify women aged 18 to 50 years who underwent surgery for endometriosis from April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2018. Surgery was classified as diagnostic laparoscopy, conservative or uterine preserving (minor or major, with and without ovarian preservation), or hysterectomy (with and without ovarian preservation). The outcomes were evaluated from 30 days after the index surgery to the end of the study period or at censoring. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratios between exposures and outcomes following adjustment for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 84,885 women 2,718 (3.2%) diagnostic laparoscopy, 21,594 (25.4%) minor conservative surgery, 28,484 (33.6%); major conservative with ovarian preservation, 2,102 (2.5%) major conservative without ovarian preservation, 21,609 (25.5%) hysterectomy with ovarian preservation, and 8,378 (9.9%) hysterectomy without ovarian preservation) were included in the cohort and followed for a median of 10 years (interquartile range, 6-13 years). In the first postoperative year, women who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy were significantly more likely to require repeat surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.87), whereas those who underwent major conservative surgery were significantly less likely to require repeat surgery (with ovarian preservation: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.48; without ovarian preservation: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.09). Among women who did not receive repeat surgery in the first year, those who underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.95) and major conservative surgery without ovarian preservation were less likely to undergo repeat surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.18) than those who initially had minor surgery. Compared with those who initially underwent minor surgery, patients who underwent other treatment modalities were less likely to undergo a hysterectomy (diagnostic laparoscopy: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.96; major surgery with ovarian preservation: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.64; major surgery without ovarian preservation: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.08). Following minor and major conservative with ovarian preservation surgery, 8,331 (38.6%) and 9,498 (33.3%) of patients sought an infertility consult within 1 year, respectively. By 5 years after the index surgery, 5,290 (29.4%) of patients who had minor conservative surgery and 4,528 (20.7%) of those who had major conservative with ovarian preservation surgery had given birth at least once.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that only a few endometriosis patients who undergo hysterectomy surgery require repeat surgery; however, up to 1 in 4 who undergo minor surgery and 1 in 5 who undergo major conservative surgery with ovarian preservation require additional endometriosis surgery. Up to 1 in 3 patients who had uterine sparing endometriosis surgery subsequently sought an infertility assessment. These findings may inform preoperative counseling in terms of recurrence of symptoms, fertility outcomes, and need for reoperation of women seeking surgical management for endometriosis. Future studies should consider the outcomes of patient satisfaction and quality of life based on the current practices for management of endometriosis.