Buserelin acetate in the treatment of pelvic pain associated with minimal and mild endometriosis: a controlled study

A systematic literature review on patient-reported outcome domains and measures in nonsurgical efficacy trials related to chronic pain associated with endometriosis: an urgent call to action

ABSTRACT

Endometriosis, a common cause for chronic pelvic pain, significantly affects quality of life, fertility, and overall productivity of those affected. Therapeutic options remain limited, and collating evidence on treatment efficacy is complicated. One reason could be the heterogeneity of assessed outcomes in nonsurgical clinical trials, impeding meaningful result comparisons. This systematic literature review examines outcome domains and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials. Through comprehensive search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL up until July 2022, we screened 1286 records, of which 191 were included in our analyses. Methodological quality (GRADE criteria), information about publication, patient population, and intervention were assessed, and domains as well as PROMs were extracted and analyzed. In accordance with IMMPACT domain framework, the domain pain was assessed in almost all studies (98.4%), followed by adverse events (73.8%). By contrast, assessment of physical functioning (29.8%), improvement and satisfaction (14.1%), and emotional functioning (6.8%) occurred less frequently. Studies of a better methodological quality tended to use more different domains. Nevertheless, combinations of more than 2 domains were rare, failing to comprehensively capture the bio-psycho-social aspects of endometriosis-associated pain. The PROMs used showed an even broader heterogeneity across all studies. Our findings underscore the large heterogeneity of assessed domains and PROMs in clinical pain-related endometriosis trials. This highlights the urgent need for a standardized approach to both, assessed domains and high-quality PROMs ideally realized through development and implementation of a core outcome set, encompassing the most pivotal domains and PROMs for both, stakeholders and patients.

A review of phase II and III drugs for the treatment and management of endometriosis

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease that gives rise to pelvic pain and infertility. Although estroprogestins and progestins currently stand as the first-line treatments for this condition, demonstrating efficacy in two-thirds of patients, a significant portion of individuals experience only partial relief or symptom recurrence following the cessation of these therapies. The coexistence of superficial, deep endometriosis, and ovarian endometriomas, as three distinct phenotypes with unique pathogenetic and molecular characteristics, may elucidate the current heterogeneous biological response to available therapy.

AREAS COVERED

The objective of this review is to furnish the reader with a comprehensive summary pertaining to phase II-III hormonal treatments for endometriosis.

EXPERT OPINION

Ongoing research endeavors are directed toward the development of novel hormonal options for this benign yet debilitating disease. Among them, oral GnRH antagonists emerge as a noteworthy option, furnishing rapid therapeutic onset without an initial flare-up; these drugs facilitate partial or complete estrogen suppression, and promote prompt ovarian function recovery upon discontinuation, effectively surmounting the limitations associated with previously employed GnRH agonists. Limited evidence supports the use of selective estrogen and progesterone receptor modulators. Consequently, further extensive clinical research is imperative to garner a more profound understanding of innovative targets for novel hormonal options.

Clinical Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics, and Safety of the Available Medical Options in the Treatment of Endometriosis-Related Pelvic Pain: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

In this scoping review, we sought to identify published studies evaluating the drugs currently used in the treatment of endometriosis-related pelvic pain, with reflection on their chemical properties, pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and clinical efficacy.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted with the use of the PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases, focusing on identifying articles published in English between January 1990 and 2023.

RESULTS

Based on the included studies, current therapy options for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain identified and reviewed in this article were: (1) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; (2) combined oral contraceptive (COCs); (3) progestins; (4) gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists; (5) aromatase inhibitors (AIs); (6) selective estrogen and progesterone receptor modulators; and (7) levonorgestrel-intrauterine device.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the published evidence, clinicians should consider NSAIDs, COCs, and progestins as the first-line medical therapies. Compared with second-line options, such as GnRH agonists/antagonists or AIs, the abovementioned first-line options are well tolerated, efficacious, and exhibit lower overall price. Future research priorities should be to identify novel target therapies and to evaluate the effects of available drugs through different routes of administration.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction.  Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.  Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Advances in targeting estrogen synthesis and receptors in patients with endometriosis

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease on the background of progesterone resistance. Increased estrogen production, low estrogen metabolization, and altered estrogen receptors (ERs) expression contribute to the hyperestrogenic milieu within endometriotic lesions. Since estrogens play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of the disease, inhibition of estrogen production is one of the main targets of available and emerging drugs.

AREAS COVERED

Firstly, we described the molecular alterations responsible for estrogen dependence. Secondly, we reviewed available and emerging treatments that interfere, through central (gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRH-a), GnRH antagonists) or local mechanisms (aromatase inhibitors (AIs), inhibitors of steroid sulfatase (STS) and hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (17β-HSD1)), with estrogen dependence. Finally, we focused on emerging treatments targeting ERs (selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), estrogen receptors agonists, and antagonists).

EXPERT OPINION

Available treatments interfering with estrogen pathways exert a contraceptive effect, have hypoestrogenic side effects, and cannot prevent or definitively treat the disease. Preclinical and animal studies are focusing on emerging drugs targeting ERs in order to overcome limitations of available treatments. These treatments may represent a promising option, as they may produce a more specific inhibition of disease activity within endometriotic implants, avoiding prolonged hypoestrogenic status and limiting systemic side effects.

Hormonal treatments for endometriosis: The endocrine background

Endometriosis is a benign uterine disorder characterized by menstrual pain and infertility, deeply affecting women's health. It is a chronic disease and requires a long term management. Hormonal drugs are currently the most used for the medical treatment and are based on the endocrine pathogenetic aspects. Estrogen-dependency and progesterone-resistance are the key events which cause the ectopic implantation of endometrial cells, decreasing apoptosis and increasing oxidative stress, inflammation and neuroangiogenesis. Endometriotic cells express AMH, TGF-related growth factors (inhibin, activin, follistatin) CRH and stress related peptides. Endocrine and inflammatory changes explain pain and infertility, and the systemic comorbidities described in these patients, such as autoimmune (thyroiditis, arthritis, allergies), inflammatory (gastrointestinal/urinary diseases) and mental health disorders.The hormonal treatment of endometriosis aims to block of menstruation through an inhibition of hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary axis or by causing a pseudodecidualization with consequent amenorrhea, impairing the progression of endometriotic implants. GnRH agonists and antagonists are effective on endometriosis by acting on pituitary-ovarian function. Progestins are mostly used for long term treatments (dienogest, NETA, MPA) and act on multiple sites of action. Combined oral contraceptives are also used for reducing endometriosis symptoms by inhibiting ovarian function. Clinical trials are currently going on selective progesterone receptor modulators, selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors. Nowadays, all these hormonal drugs are considered the first-line treatment for women with endometriosis to improve their symptoms, to postpone surgery or to prevent post-surgical disease recurrence. This review aims to provide a comprehensive state-of-the-art on the current and future hormonal treatments for endometriosis, exploring the endocrine background of the disease.

Progression of deep infiltrating rectosigmoid endometriotic nodules

STUDY QUESTION

What is the risk of progression of deep endometriotic nodules infiltrating the rectosigmoid?

SUMMARY ANSWER

There is a risk of progression of deep endometriotic nodules infiltrating the rectosigmoid, particularly in menstruating women.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Currently, there is a lack of acceptance in the literature on the probability that deeply infiltrating rectosigmoid endometriotic nodules progress in size.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a monocentric case-control study between September 2016 and March 2018 at Rouen University Hospital. We enrolled 43 patients who were referred to our tertiary referral centre with deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectosigmoid, who had undergone two MRI examinations at least 12 months apart and had not undergone surgical treatment of rectosigmoid endometriosis during this interval.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

MRI images were reinterpreted by a senior radiologist with experience and expertise in endometriosis, who measured the length and thickness of deep infiltrating colorectal lesions. Intra- and inter-observer reliability were tested on 30 randomly selected cases. We defined 'progression' of a nodule as an increase of ≥20% in length or in thickness and 'regression' of a lesion as a decrease of ≥20% in length or in thickness between two MRIs. Any nodule for which the variation in length and thickness was <20% was considered as 'stable'. Patients were divided into three groups based on evidence of progression, regression or stability of deep endometriotic nodules between their two MRI examinations. The total length of any period of amenorrhoea between the two MRI examinations, due to pregnancy, breastfeeding or hormonal treatment, was recorded. The total proportion of the time between MRIs where amenorrhoea occurred was compared between groups.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Eighty-six patients underwent at least two MRIs for deep endometriosis infiltrating the sigmoid or rectum between September 2016 and March 2018. Of these, we excluded 10 patients with an interval of <12 months between MRIs, 10 patients who underwent surgery between MRIs, 17 patients for whom at least 1 MRI was considered to be of poor quality and 6 patients for whom no deep colorectal lesion was found on repeat review of either MRI. This resulted in a total of 43 patients eligible for enrolment in the final analysis. Mean time (SD) between MRIs was 38.3 (22.1) months. About 60.5% of patients demonstrated stability of their colorectal lesions between the two MRIs, 27.9% of patients met the criteria for 'progression' of lesions and 11.6% met the criteria for 'regression' of lesions. There was no significant difference in time interval between MRIs for the three groups (P = 0.76). Median duration of amenorrhoea was significantly lower in women with progression of lesions (7.5 months) when compared to those with stability of lesions (8.5 months) or regression of lesions (21 months) (P < 0.001). Median duration of amenorrhoea (expressed as percentage of total time between two MRIs) was also found to be significantly lower in the group demonstrating progression (15.1%) when compared to the group demonstrating stability (19.2%) and the group demonstrating regression (94.1%; P = 0.006). Progression of rectosigmoid nodules was observed in 34% of patients without continuous amenorrhoea, in 39% who had never had amenorrhoea and in no patients with continuous amenorrhoea.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Due to a lack of universally accepted criteria for defining the progression or regression of deep endometriotic nodules on MRI, the values used in our study may be disputed. Due to the retrospective design of the study, there may be heterogeneity of interval between MRIs, MRI techniques used, reason for amenorrhoea and duration of amenorrhoea. The mean inter-MRI interval was of short duration and varied between patients. Our findings are reported for only deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectosigmoid and cannot be extrapolated, without caution, to nodules of other locations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Patients with deeply infiltrating rectosigmoid endometriotic nodules, for which surgical management has not been performed, should undergo surveillance to allow detection of growth of nodules, particularly when continuous amenorrhoea has not been achieved. This recommendation is of importance to young patients with rectosigmoid nodules who wish to conceive, in whom first line ART is planned. There is a very low risk of progression of deep endometriotic nodules infiltrating the rectosigmoid in women with amenorrhoea induced by medical therapy, lactation or pregnancy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was received for this study. The authors declare no competing interests related to this study.

[Endometriosis medical treatment: Hormonal treatment for the management of pain and endometriotic lesions recurrence. CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]

The available literature, from 2006 to 2017, on hormonal treatment has been analysed as a contribution to the HAS-CNGOF task force for the treatment of endometriosis. Available data are heterogeneous and the general level of evidence is moderate. Hormonal treatment is usually offered as the primary option to women suffering from endometriosis. It cannot be used in women willing to conceive. In women who have not been operated, the first line of hormonal treatment includes combined oral contraceptives (COC) and the levonorgestrel-releasing intra uterine system (52mg LNG-IUS). As a second line, desogestrel progestin only pills, etonogestrel implants, GnRH analogs (GnRHa) with add back therapy and dienogest can be offered. Add back therapy should include estrogens to prevent bone loss and improve quality of life, it can be introduced before the third month of treatment to prevent side effects. The literature does not support preoperative hormonal treatment for the sole purpose of reducing complications or recurrence, or facilitating surgical procedures. After surgical treatment, hormonal treatment is recommended to prevent pain recurrence and improve quality of life. COCs or LNG IUS are recommended as a first line. To prevent recurrence of endometriomas COC is advised and maintained as long as tolerance is good in the absence of pregnancy plans. In case of dysmenorrhea, postoperative COC should be used in a continuous scheme. GnRHa are not recommended in the sole purpose of reducing endometrioma recurrence risk.

[Medical treatment of endometriosis: Hormonal treatment of pain, impact on evolution and future perspectives]

CONTEXT

Endometriosis is a chronic painful disease, for which hormone therapy is usually offered as a first line option to women not willing to conceive.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse and synthesize the literature, from 2006 onwards, on pain control, and disease evolution in oemn using combined hormonal contraceptives, progestins and GnRH analogs. Data on other current and future treatment perspectives is included as well.

SOURCES

Medline (Pubmed), the Cochrane Library, and endometriosis treatment recommendations published by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Société des Obstétriciens et Gynécologues du Canada (SOGC).

STUDY SELECTION

Meta-analysis and clinical trials are included.

RESULTS

Study quality is heterogeneous in general. Hormone therapy inconstantly allows pain relief and prevention of endometrioma and rectovaginal wall nodules recurrence. Available molecules and routes of administration as well as risk benefit balance are evaluated. Data on future perspectives are limited to date and do not allow use in routine.

CONCLUSION

Hormonal treatment of endometriosis relies on combined hormonal contraceptives (using different routes of administration), progestins and particularly the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS, and GnRH analogs as a last option, in combination with an add-back therapy. Promising alternatives are currently under preclinical and clinical evaluation.

Analogs of Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone in the Treatment of Endometriosis

Agonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) induce a reversible hypoestrogenic state through the down-regulation of LHRH receptors and desensitization of the pituitary. Since endometrial implants are estrogen sensitive, LHRH agonists have frequently been used for medical treatment of endometriosis. Nowadays, LHRH agonists can be considered in general as a second-line medical treatment for endometriosis-related symptoms, as oral therapy with dienogest is as effective and has fewer side effects. However, therapy with LHRH agonists for 3-6 months prior to in vitro fertilization remains the treatment of choice in patients with endometriosis, as it significantly increases pregnancy rates.

LHRH agonists are used prior to surgery and as an adjuvant after an operation to prevent recurrence or prolong disease-free intervals. Adverse effects of LHRH agonists are due to hypoestrogenism and include hot flushes, vaginal dryness, loss of libido, sleep disturbances and a diminished bone density which limits the duration of their administration to 6 months. For long-term treatment, add-back of estrogen and/or progestin,/or progestin only with or without bisphosphonates, can be used, but existing studies only cover a 12-month period of treatment.

LHRH antagonists competitively block the pituitary receptors for LHRH. Consequently, a partial pharmacological hypophysectomy with a reduction of the estrogen levels to a desired level is possible if LHRH antagonists are adequately dosed. As endometriotic implants require relatively high levels of estrogen, partially lower plasma levels of estrogens are sufficient to prevent the loss of bone density. A long-term treatment without add-back therapy is also possible.

Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose a scale?

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies concerning endometriosis and pain have been reported. However, there is no consensus on the best method to evaluate pain in endometriosis and many scales have been used. Moreover, there are only a few descriptions of minimal clinically important differences after treatment (MCID) to evaluate variations in pain. In our study, we aim to identify pain scales used in endometriosis pain treatment, to address their strong and weak points and to define which would be the ideal scale to help clinicians and researchers to evaluate endometriosis-related pain.

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out for publications in English, French or Portuguese from 1980 to December 2012, for the words: endometriosis, treatment, pain. Studies were selected if they studied an endometriosis treatment and a pain scale was specified. A quantitative and a qualitative analysis of each scale was performed to define strong and weak points of each scale (systematic registration number: CRD42013005336).

RESULTS

A total of 736 publications were identified. After excluding duplications and applying inclusion criteria 258 studies remained. We found that the visual analog scale (VAS) is the most frequently used scale. Both VAS and the numerical rating scale (NRS) show a good balance between strong and weak points in comparison with others such as the Biberoglu and Behrman scale. Concerning MCID, only VAS, NRS and Brief Pain Inventory scales have reported MCID and, among these, only VAS MCID has been studied in endometriosis patients (VAS MCID = 10 mm). Adding the Clinical Global Impression score (CGI) to the pain scale allows calculation of the MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

When using pain scales their strengths and weaknesses must be known and included in the analysis. VAS is the most frequently used pain scale and, together with NRS, seems the best adapted for endometriosis pain measurement. The use of VAS or NRS for each type of typical pain related to endometriosis (dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia and non-menstrual chronic pelvic pain), combined with the CGI and a quality-of-life scale will provide both clinicians and researchers with tools to evaluate treatment response.

Effect of octreotide on endometriosis in acromegaly: Case report with review of literature

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of octreotide therapy on endometriotic lesions in a patient with coexisting endometriosis and acromegaly.

INTERVENTION PATIENT

A 34-year-old female was diagnosed with acromegaly and coexisting endometriosis. Post-surgical resection of the tumor, patient was initiated on octreotide therapy.

RESULTS

There was improvement in menstrual bleeding as IGF1 levels decreased with Octreotide therapy. Resolution of the endometriotic lesions was observed during follow up.

CONCLUSION

In this unusual case, the treatment of acromegaly concurred with regression in the endometriotic lesions. Causal or incidental association cannot be inferred from the present case.

The Place of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists in the Management of Endometriosis

Purpose

This review focuses on the use of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, a typically marginalized class of drugs, and describes their role in the management of endometriosis, with special interest in 4 regions: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and China.

Methods

The authors met in Dubai in November 2012 for a consensus meeting on the use of GnRH agonists in the 4 regions. The meeting was based on a review of the published regional guidelines for endometriosis and a selective literature search of articles published in the past 5 years that focused on the use of GnRH agonists in endometriosis.

Results

The guidelines place GnRH agonists as a second-line option for the management of pain in deep infiltrating endometriosis and to improve fertility in women planning to undergo in vitro fertilization. Published articles and personal evidence presented at the meeting suggest that surgery for endometriomas should be delayed as long as possible to conserve ovarian function and that GnRH agonist therapy after surgery may reduce their recurrence. However, although add-back therapy is advocated with the use of GnRH agonists, there is no consensus on when this should be started.

Conclusions

There are important regional differences in cultural sensitivities to diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis, as well as a diverging approach to surgery. Given the limitations and conflicts in the diagnosis and management of endometriosis, it is essential that the available drugs, including the GnRH agonists, are used in the most appropriate settings.

Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists: Expanding vistas

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists are derived from native GnRH by amino acid substitution which yields the agonist resistant to degradation and increases its half-life. The hypogonadotropic hypogonadal state produced by GnRH agonists has been often dubbed as "pseudomenopause" or "medical oophorectomy," which are both misnomers. GnRH analogues (GnRH-a) work by temporarily "switching off" the ovaries. Ovaries can be "switched off" for the therapy and therapeutic trial of many conditions which include but are not limited to subfertility, endometriosis, adenomyosis, uterine leiomyomas, precocious puberty, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, chronic pelvic pain, or the prevention of menstrual bleeding in special clinical situations. Rapidly expanding vistas of usage of GnRH agonists encompass use in sex reassignment of male to female transsexuals, management of final height in cases of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and preserving ovarian function in women undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. Hypogonadic side effects caused by the use of GnRH agonists can be tackled with use of "add-back" therapy. Goserelin, leuprolide, and nafarelin are commonly used in clinical practice. GnRH-a have provided us a powerful therapeutic approach to the treatment of numerous conditions in reproductive medicine. Recent synthesis of GnRH antagonists with a better tolerability profile may open new avenues for both research and clinical applications. All stakeholders who are partners in women's healthcare need to join hands to spread awareness so that these drugs can be used to realize their full potential.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis

EDITORIAL NOTE

See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37341141/ for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review.

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition, characterised by the presence of endometrial tissue in sites other than the uterine cavity (excluding adenomyosis) that frequently presents with pain. The gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) comprise one intervention that has been offered for pain relief in pre-menopausal women. GnRHas can be administered intranasally, by subcutaneous, or intramuscular injection. They are thought to result in down regulation of the pituitary and induce a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialist register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCInfo and CINAHL were conducted in April 2010 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of GnRHas as treatment for pain associated with endometriosis versus no treatment, placebo, danazol, intra-uterine progestagens, or other GnRHas were included. Trials using add-back therapy, oral contraceptives, surgical intervention, GnRH antagonists or complementary therapies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was pain relief. Relative risk was used as the measure of effect for dichotomous data. For continuous data, mean differences or standardised mean differences were used.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty one trials (n=4935 women) were included. The evidence suggested that GnRHas were more effective at symptom relief than no treatment/placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between GnRHas and danazol for dysmenorrhoea RR 0.98 (95%CI 0.92 to 1.04; P = 0.53). This equates to 3 fewer women per 1000 (95%CI 12 to 6) with symptomatic pain relief in the GnRHa group. More adverse events were reported in the GnRHa group. There was a benefit in overall resolution for GnRHas RR1.10 (95%CI 1.01 to 1.21, P=0.03) compared with danazol. There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain between GnRHas and levonorgestrel SMD -0.25 (95%CI -0.60 to 0.10, P=0.46). Evidence was limited on optimal dosage or duration of treatment for GnRHas. No route of administration appeared superior to another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GnRHas appear to be more effective at relieving pain associated with endometriosis than no treatment/placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and danazol although more adverse events reported in the GnRHa groups. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and levonorgestrel and no studies compared GnRHas with analgesics.

Questioning patients about their adolescent history can identify markers associated with deep infiltrating endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the clinical history, particularly of the adolescence period, contains markers of deeply infiltrating endometriosis (DIE).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Universitary tertiary referral center.

PATIENT(S)

Two hundred twenty-nine patients operated on for endometriosis. Endometriotic lesions were histologically confirmed as non-DIE (superficial peritoneal endometriosis and/or ovarian endometriomas) (n = 131) or DIE (n = 98).

INTERVENTION(S)

Surgical excision of endometriotic lesions with pathological analysis of each specimens.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Epidemiological data, pelvic pain scores, family history of endometriosis, absenteeism from school during menstruation, oral contraceptive (OC) pill use.

RESULT(S)

Patients with DIE had significantly more positive family history of endometriosis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-8.8) and more absenteeism from school during menstruation (OR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1-3). The OC pill use for treating severe primary dysmenorrhea was more frequent in patients with DIE (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 1.9-10.4). Duration of OC pill use for severe primary dysmenorrhea was longer in patients with DIE (8.4 ± 4.7 years vs. 5.1 ± 3.8 years). There was a higher incidence of OC pill use for severe primary dysmenorrhea before 18 years of age in patients with DIE (OR = 4.2; 95% CI: 1.8-10.0).

CONCLUSION(S)

The knowledge of adolescent period history can identify markers that are associated with DIE in patients undergoing surgery for endometriosis.

Aromatase inhibitors in recurrent ovarian endometriomas: report of five cases with literature review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the role of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole in the treatment of recurrent ovarian endometrioma cases.

DESIGN

Nonrandomized proof of concept study.

SETTINGS

Outpatient tertiary-care center.

PATIENT(S)

Five premenopausal patients with documented ovarian endometriomas and chronic pelvic pain, all of whom were previously treated with surgery and medicine with unsatisfactory results.

INTERVENTION(S)

Ovarian endometriomas were diagnosed by biopsy after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy and subsequently treated with hormones. After a 6-month washout of endometriosis hormone therapies, women took letrozole (2.5 mg), one tablet of 0.15 mg of desogestrel, and 0.03 mg of ethinyl estradiol, calcium (1,200 mg), and vitamin D3 (800 IU) daily for 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Size of endometriomas (monitored by ultrasound), assessment of pelvic pain (by visual analog scale), and bone density (DEXA scan).

RESULT(S)

Disappearance of ovarian endometrioma and reduction in pelvic pain in all cases at the end of 6 months. The size of ovarian endometriomas was reduced after 3 months. Pain scores decreased only after 1 month of treatment and continued decreasing in each treatment month. Overall, no significant change in bone density was detected.

CONCLUSION(S)

Letrozole given with combined pills achieved complete regression of recurrent endometriotic cysts and pain relief in all cases.

Endometriosis: current therapies and new pharmacological developments

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition that is responsive to management with steroids. The establishment of a steady hormonal environment and inhibition of ovulation can temporarily suppress ectopic implants and reduce inflammation as well as associated pain symptoms. In terms of pharmacological management, the currently available agents are not curative, and treatment often needs to be continued for years or until pregnancy is desired. Similar efficacy has been observed from the various therapies that have been investigated for endometriosis. Accordingly, combined oral contraceptives and progestins, based on their favourable safety profile, tolerability and cost, should be considered as first-line options, as an alternative to surgery and for post-operative adjuvant use. In situations where progestins and oral contraceptives prove ineffective, are poorly tolerated or are contraindicated, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues, danazol or gestrinone may be used. Future therapeutic options for managing endometriosis must compare favourably against existing agents before they can be considered for inclusion into current practice. Finally, as reproductive prognosis is not ameliorated by medical treatment, it is not indicated for women seeking conception.

The effect of surgery for symptomatic endometriosis: the other side of the story

BACKGROUND

Surgery is often considered the best treatment option in women with symptomatic endometriosis. However, extent and duration of the therapeutic benefit are still poorly defined.

METHODS

The best available evidence on surgery for endometriosis-associated pain has been reviewed to estimate the effect size of interventions in the most frequently encountered clinical conditions.

RESULTS

Methodological drawbacks limit considerably the validity of observational, non-comparative studies on the effect of laparoscopy for stage I-IV disease. As indicated by the results of three RCTs, the absolute benefit increase of destruction of lesions compared with diagnostic only operation in terms of proportion of women reporting pain relief was between 30% and 40% after short follow-up periods. The effect size tended to decrease with time and the re-operation rate, based on long-term follow-up studies, was as high as 50%. In most case series on excisional surgery for rectovaginal endometriosis, substantial short-term pain relief was experienced by approximately 70-80% of the subjects who continued the study. However, at 1 year follow-up, approximately 50% of the women needed analgesics or hormonal treatments. Major complications were observed in 3-10% of the patients. Medium-term recurrence of lesions was observed in approximately 20% of the cases, and around 25% of the women underwent repetitive surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain recurrence and re-operation rates after conservative surgery for symptomatic endometriosis are high and probably underestimated. Clinicians and patients should be aware that the expected benefit is operator-dependent.

WITHDRAWN: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that frequently presents with the symptom of pain. The precise pathogenesis (mode of development) of endometriosis is unclear but it is evident that endometriosis arises by the dissemination of endometrium to ectopic sites and the subsequent establishment of deposits of ectopic endometrium. The observation that endometriosis is rarely seen in the hypo-oestrogenic (low levels of oestrogen) post-menopausal woman led to the concept of medical treatment by induction of a pseudo-menopause using Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone Analogues (GnRHas). When administered in a non-pulsatile manner (the pituitary is normally stimulated by pulses of natural GnRH and all analogues act on the pituitary at a constant level) their use results in down regulation (switching off) of the pituitary and a hypogonadotrophic hypogonadal state (low levels of female hormones due to non stimulation of the ovary).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis by comparing them with no treatment, placebo, other recognised medical treatments, and surgical interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility review group (please see Review Group details) was used to identify all randomised trials of the use of GnRHas for the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were included if they were randomised, and considered the effectiveness of GnRHas in the treatment of the painful symptoms of endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Twenty-six studies had data appropriate for inclusion in the review. The largest group (15 studies) compared GnRHas with danazol. There are five studies comparing GnRHas with GnRHas plus add-back therapy, three comparing GnRHa with GnRHa in a different form or dose, one compares them with gestrinone, one with the combined oral contraceptive pill, and one with placebo. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The authors of eleven studies have been contacted to clarify missing or unclear data. Only four have replied to date. Data on relief of pain, change in revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) scores, and side effects was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

No difference was found between GnRHas and any of the other active comparators with respect to pain relief or reduction in endometriotic deposits. The side effect profiles of the different treatments were different, with danazol and gestrinone having more androgenic side effects, while GnRHas tend to produce more hypo-oestrogenic symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little or no difference in the effectiveness of GnRHas in comparison with other medical treatments for endometriosis. GnRHas do appear to be an effective treatment. Differences that do exist relate to side effect profiles. Side effects of GnRHas can be ameliorated by the addition of addback therapy.

GnRH analogs: options for endometriosis-associated pain treatment

While none of the currently available treatment options for endometriosis pain resolved the underlying disease process, there are growing numbers of medical alternatives available. Medical options include the GnRH agonists and antagonists. Review of these treatments in the management of endometriosis pain and the insight often to the etiology of endometriosis are presented for discussion.

Management of the pain associated with endometriosis: an update of the painful problems

Endometriosis is a condition characterized by ectopic endometrial tissues located outside of the uterus, most commonly found on the pelvic peritoneum or ovary. Endometriosis, which occurs in 7-10% of women in the general population and 71-87% of women with chronic pelvic pain, is associated with dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility. There is considerable debate about the effectiveness of various interventions for endometriosis. This review discusses the benefits and drawbacks of pharmacologic and surgical treatments for the pain associated with endometriosis. Laparoscopic surgery has been demonstrated to relieve the pain associated with endometriosis. Hormonal therapies, such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues or the weak androgen danazol, have also been effective at relieving the pain associated with endometriosis. Oral contraceptives appear to be as effective as GnRH analogues for pain relief. Although both surgical and pharmacologic treatments have been effective for relief of the pain associated with endometriosis, the recurrence rate remains significant. The management of pain associated with endometriosis has thus not been satisfied. Larger unified clinical trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of new treatments in managing the pain associated with endometriosis.

Laparoscopic excision of recurrent endometriomas: long-term outcome and comparison with primary surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the laparoscopic excision of primary versus recurrent ovarian endometriomas.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center for the treatment of endometriosis.

PATIENT(S)

Between 1993 and 2002, 359 consecutive patients: 305 primary surgeries (group A) and 54 reoperations for a recurrent endometrioma in the same ovary of the primary cyst (group B).

INTERVENTION(S)

Laparoscopic stripping of the cyst wall. Follow-up evaluations every 6 months, including clinical and ultrasonographic evaluations and a questionnaire for pain symptoms (mean follow-up time, +/- standard deviation: 35.4 +/- 27.6 months).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Recurrence of pain symptoms, sonographic recurrence of endometriomas, need for a new medical or surgical treatment, and reproductive outcome.

RESULT(S)

In groups A and B, respectively, the 5-year cumulative rates were not statistically significantly different: pain recurrence 20.5% versus 17.4%; ultrasonographic recurrence 18.9% versus 15.1%; retreatment requirement 19.4% versus 17.3%; and pregnancy 40.8% versus 32.4%. Although the difference was not statistically significant, compared with patients of group A, the women of group B underwent assisted reproduction techniques more frequently (50% vs. 32.2%) and had more irregular menstrual cycles associated with follicle-stimulating hormone levels > or = 14 IU/mL in the early follicular phase (5.5% vs. 1.3%).

CONCLUSION(S)

After laparoscopic excision of recurrent ovarian endometriomas, the recurrence of pain and the reproductive outcome are comparable with those found after primary surgery.

Medical management of endometriosis

Current approved medical therapies for endometriosis rely on drugs that suppress ovarian steroids and induce a hypoestrogenic state, which determines the atrophy of the ectopic endometrium. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs such as danazol, progestogens and estrogen-progestin combinations have all proven effective in relieving pain and reducing the extent of endometriotic implants. However, symptoms often recur after discontinuation of therapy and hypoestrogenism-related side effects limit the long-term use of most medications. Recently, knowledge of the pathogenesis of endometriosis, particularly at the molecular level, has grown substantially, providing a rational basis for the development of new drugs with precise targets that may be safely administered over the long term.

Surgical treatment of deep endometriosis and risk of recurrence

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of recurrence of deep endometriosis after conservative surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-3).

SETTING

Tertiary care university hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifteen symptomatic patients operated on in our department from 1996 through 2002 with postoperative follow-up of at least 12 months.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent conservative surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

Risk factors for recurrence of symptoms and clinical findings and for repeated surgery were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. During follow-up, we observed 28 patients with pain recurrence and 15 patients with recurrent clinical findings, and 12 patients required reoperation for deep endometriosis. Recurrence rates of pain and clinical findings during 36 months were 20.5% and 9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that only age was a significant predictor of pain recurrence (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.81-0.99, p<.05), enhancing the risk in younger patients. Recurrence of clinical signs of deep endometriosis was predicted by obliteration of the pouch of Douglas (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.16-16.2, p<.05). Reoperation for deep endometriosis was predicted only by the incompleteness of first operation (OR 21.9, 95% CI 3.2-146.5, p<.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that age, obliteration of the pouch of Douglas, and surgical completeness may have a significant influence on the recurrence of the disease.

Tailoring radicality in demolitive surgery for deeply infiltrating endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of standard extrafascial hysterectomy and tailored radical hysterectomy as a definitive treatment of recurrent deep endometriosis.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a descriptive study that comprised 38 patients who underwent total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between 1989 and 2002 for symptomatic recurrences of deep endometriosis, after>or=1 previous surgical procedures and ovarian suppressive medical treatments. After the operation, all of the patients were given transdermal estradiol. The minimum follow-up time was 24 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients underwent standard extra-fascial hysterectomy (group A), and 12 patients underwent modified radical hysterectomy that included the removal of all deeply infiltrating endometriotic lesions (group B). The recurrence of pain caused by endometriosis occurred in 8 women (31%) of group A and in no patients of group B.

CONCLUSION

Definitive surgery for deep endometriosis should include the removal of the uterus, adnexa, and all surgically accessible deep lesions. As a consequence, the surgeon must be familiar with radical pelvic surgery.

Is rectovaginal endometriosis a progressive disease?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated asymptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective, observational study. Eighty-eight patients with untreated asymptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis were followed for 1 to 9 years. Pain symptoms and clinical and transrectal ultrasonographic findings were evaluated before and every 6 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Two patients had specific symptoms that were attributable to rectovaginal endometriosis that was associated with an increase in lesion size and underwent surgery. In 4 other patients, the size of the endometriotic lesions increased, but the patients remained symptom free. The estimated cumulative proportion of patients with progression of disease and/or appearance of pain symptoms that were attributable to rectovaginal endometriosis after 6 years of follow up was 9.7%. For the remaining patients, the follow-up period was uneventful, with no detectable clinical nor echographic changes of the lesions and with no appearance of new symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Progression of the disease and appearance of specific symptoms rarely occurred in patients with asymptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis.

Long-term follow-up after conservative surgery for rectovaginal endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term results in patients who received conservative surgical treatment for rectovaginal endometriosis.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed the follow-up data for 83 women who underwent surgery for rectovaginal endometriosis. The inclusion criteria were age 20 to 42 years, moderate-to-severe pain symptoms, conservative treatment with retention of the uterus, and at least 1 ovary; the follow-up period was > or =12 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to calculate recurrence rates.

RESULTS

The cumulative rates of pain recurrence, clinical or sonographic recurrence, and new treatment were 28%, 34%, and 27%, respectively. The younger patients had the higher risk of recurrence. Pregnancy had protective effects against the recurrence of symptoms and a need for a new treatment. Patients who underwent bowel resection had fewer recurrences.

CONCLUSION

Segmental resection and anastomosis of the bowel, when necessary, improves the outcome without affecting chances of conception. Higher recurrence rates in younger patients seems to justify a more radical treatment in this group of women.

Medical management of endometriosis-associated pain

In the coming years, basic science research into the mechanisms of endometriosis development and persistence almost certainly will open new avenues for treatment. A wide armamentarium of medical therapies already exists, however. The efficacy of most of these methods in reducing endometriosis-associated pain is well established. The choice of which to use depends largely on patient preference after an appropriate discussion of risks, side effects, and cost. Typically, oral contraceptives and NSAIDs are first-line therapy because of their low cost and mild side effects (Box 6). Because of its greater potential for suppressing endometrial development, consideration should be given to prescribing a low-dose monophasic oral contraceptive continuously. If adequate relief is not obtained or if side effects prove intolerable, consideration should be given to the use of progestins (oral, intramuscular, or IUD) or a GnRH agonist with immediate add-back therapy. Progestins are less expensive, but GnRH agonists with add-back may be better tolerated. If none of these medications proves beneficial or if side effects are too pronounced, then repeat surgery is warranted. The surgery may have analgesic value and serves to reconfirm the diagnosis. Finally, if endometriosis is identified at the time of surgery, then consideration should be given to prescribing medical therapy postoperatively.

Medical and surgical therapies for pain associated with endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common condition for which a number of treatments have been proposed. Medical treatments are based on the hormonal responsiveness of endometriosis implants. These therapies include progestins (with or without estrogens), androgens, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs. Surgical treatments may include hysterectomy with oophorectomy or organ-sparing surgery involving ablation or resection of visible lesions of endometriosis and restoration of pelvic anatomy. There are no studies that directly compare the effectiveness or adverse effects of medical therapy and surgical therapy. Studies on medical therapy compare different treatments with placebo or with other active treatments. Hormone-based therapies for endometriosis show 80%-100% effectiveness in relief of pelvic pain over a 6-month course of therapy. Serious adverse outcomes after medical therapy are unusual. Studies on surgical therapy are largely anecdotal, with noncomparative reports on a variety of surgical methods. A few comparative surgical studies have been reported. Because of the noncomparative nature of many of the surgical studies, the use of combinations of surgical procedures and techniques in the reported studies, and the reporting of results from surgeons with an unusually high level of technical skill, the gynecological practitioner has little basis in the literature for assessing the optimum surgical approach. Surgical complications are believed to be underreported and may be related to how aggressive a surgical procedure is undertaken.

Use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of rectovaginal endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD as therapy for endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum.

DESIGN

Prospective therapeutic non-randomized, self-controlled clinical trial analyzing changes in pain symptoms and size of lesions induced by the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD over 12 months.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center for treatment of deep endometriosis.

PATIENT(S)

Eleven symptomatic patients with rectovaginal endometriosis.

INTERVENTION(S)

A levonorgestrel-releasing IUD was inserted and maintained for 12 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Severity of dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and deep dyspareunia were assessed before insertion of the IUD and throughout treatment. The size of rectovaginal endometriotic lesions were evaluated by using transrectal and transvaginal ultrasonography.

RESULT(S)

Dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and deep dyspareunia greatly improved and the size of the endometriotic lesions was significantly reduced by treatment.

CONCLUSION(S)

Insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD alleviates pain and reduces the size of lesions in patients with endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment for endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-month course of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment for patients with symptomatic endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum.

STUDY DESIGN

Fifteen patients with rectovaginal endometriosis and moderate to severe pain symptoms were the subjects of the study. None of these patients had either clinical or objective evidence of ovarian endometriosis, nor was there evidence of any obstructive lesions of the intestine or ureters. All patients were given leuprolide acetate depot at 3.75 mg, 1 ampule intramuscularly every 28 days, and treatment had a planned duration of 6 months. Follow-up evaluations were set every 2 months during the treatment phase and every 3 months thereafter until the completion of 1 year after discontinuation of medical therapy. At each follow-up visit pain symptoms were recorded, and clinical exploration, transvaginal ultrasonography, and transrectal ultrasonography were performed.

RESULTS

Two patients stopped the treatment early after the second and fourth leuprolide doses; in both cases the reason was persistence of pain, and both requested a surgical solution. The other 13 patients showed a marked improvement with respect to pain during the 6-month treatment course but had early pain recurrence after drug suspension; 11 of them required further treatment within the first year of follow-up. The failure rate of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy to produce 1-year pain relief after treatment discontinuation was 87% (13/15) on an intent-to-treat basis. The endometriotic lesions showed a slight but significant reduction in size during therapy but had returned to the original volume within 6 months after cessation of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs should not be considered a real therapeutic alternative to surgical treatment for patients with symptomatic endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum, except possibly in a limited and unpredictable number of cases.

Endometriosis and pain

Endometriosis generally causes pain that is cyclic and generally responds to medication and/or surgery. When endometriosis is found coincidentally, it may need no treatment because many women have endometriosis as a self-limited disease. In other women, the biologic behavior is much more unpredictable. Severe dysmenorrhea, focal pelvic tenderness, and deep dyspareunia are suggestive of endometriosis. Diagnosis at laparoscopy includes concerns about subtle appearance, endometriosis hidden within adhesions, retroperitoneal disease, and intra-ovarian lesions. Negative laparoscopy results do not mean that patients have no endometriosis. In contrast, a response to GnRH agonists can occur in patients with no endometriosis because conditions other than endometriosis are estrogen sensitive. Coexistent disease can confuse the picture at the time of surgery. Some coexistent diseases also can cause pain that is similar to that of endometriosis. Distinguishing those patients who need no treatment from those who need intermediate or extensive treatment can be very difficult. Care is needed to ensure that patients are neither overtreated or undertreated. An integrated approach involving a multidisciplinary team is needed in some. Other patients respond to primary care techniques.

Comparison of transdermal estradiol and tibolone for the treatment of oophorectomized women with deep residual endometriosis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of HRT with transdermal estradiol and that of treatment with tibolone in post-menopausal women with residual endometriosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

21 women with residual pelvic endometriosis after bilateral oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy were enrolled in the study and were randomized to HRT with transdermal estradiol 50 mg twice weekly (n = 10) associated with cyclic medroxyprogesterone acetate 10 mg daily in women who preserved uterus, and to treatment with tibolone 2.5 mg administered orally once a day (n = 11). The duration of both treatments was scheduled to last at least 12 months. Residual endometriosis was located in the bowel wall in four patients, in the rectovaginal septum in six and deeply in the retroperitoneal pelvic space in six. All women were symptomatic before oophorectomy.

RESULTS

All the women were followed for 12 months. No patient suspended therapy because of side effects. Four patients of the estradiol group experienced moderate pelvic pain during treatment compared with only one patient in the tibolone group. One patient in the estradiol group reported severe dyspareunia.

CONCLUSION

Although our series is very small, it seems that tibolone may be a safe hormonal treatment for post-menopausal women with residual endometriosis.

Follow-up of laparoscopic treatment of stage III-IV endometriosis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of conservative laparoscopic surgery in a series of patients with stage III-IV endometriosis.

DESIGN

Prospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital.

PATIENTS

All 141 women who underwent conservative operative laparoscopy for stage III-IV endometriosis between January 1993 and December 1996 and were followed for a minimum of 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic procedures performed with scissors, bipolar coagulation, and hydrodissection.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Clinical examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and pain questionnaire were scheduled every 6 months postoperatively. The cumulative proportion of pregnant patients and cumulative recurrence rate were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. Twenty-five women (44%) with infertility became pregnant. Twenty-three (51%) had stage III and two (16.7%, p <0.05) had stage IV endometriosis. The 24-month cumulative pregnancy rate was 57.5%. Thirty-one women (22%) reported pain recurrence during follow-up. Five (3.5%) recurrences were confirmed by histologic examination and eight (5.7%) were documented only by clinical and ultrasonographic findings. No recurrence occurred in the first 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Operative laparoscopy seems to be effective treatment for stage III endometriosis. A larger series with longer follow-up is necessary to clarify its role in the management of stage IV disease. (J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6(1):55-58, 1999)

The evidence for the management of endometriosis

This review article has focussed on identifying the evidence from randomized controlled trials for the medical and surgical management of endometriosis. A critical summary of the medical management has shown that there is little difference in effectiveness of various medical treatments, but there are differences in the side-effect profiles. Few randomized controlled trials have been undertaken in surgery, but these have shown that surgical management is effective in the management of both painful symptoms and subfertility.

Effects of triptorelin versus placebo on the symptoms of endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of a GnRH-agonist, triptorelin, versus placebo on the symptoms of endometriosis.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of 6 months of treatment followed by 12 months of follow-up.

SETTING

Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology at two universities and one general hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Forty-nine women with symptoms of laparoscopically verified endometriosis.

INTERVENTION(S)

Triptorelin depot or placebo was given every 4 weeks. Clinical evaluation, including the Duration Intensity Behavior Scale and Visual Analogue Scale for pain, was performed before the injections and up to 12 months after treatment. A control laparoscopy was performed 4-6 weeks after the last injection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Quantitation of pain.

RESULT(S)

Twenty-four patients had active treatment and 25 received placebo. Pain symptoms according to both scales were significantly more reduced after 2 months of triptorelin treatment compared to placebo. The extent of endometriotic lesions was reduced 50% during triptorelin treatment and increased 17% during placebo. The average area of endometriotic lesions was reduced 45% during triptorelin treatment but was unchanged during placebo. Side effects, mainly hot flushes, were experienced by 80% of the actively treated group but also by 33% of patients in the placebo group. Because of recurrent symptoms, only five patients could be observed for 12 months after completion of treatment.

CONCLUSION(S)

Triptorelin reduces endometriotic lesions and pain to a significantly higher degree than placebo.

Gestrinone versus a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for the treatment of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Gestrinone Italian Study Group

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of gestrinone versus leuprolide acetate (LA) in improving pelvic pain in women with endometriosis and to compare their effects on bone mineral density and serum lipid profile.

DESIGN

Multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Six academic departments specialized in the study of endometriosis.

PATIENT(S)

Fifty-five women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis.

INTERVENTION(S)

Six-month treatment with oral gestrinone (n = 27) or IM depot LA (n = 28) followed by 6-month follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Variations in severity of dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and nonmenstrual pain as shown by a visual analog scale and a verbal rating scale, modifications in bone mineral content as shown by dual-roentgenogram absorptiometry, and variations in serum cholesterol subfractions and lipoprotein(a) concentrations.

RESULT(S)

Significant improvements were observed in all three symptoms considered in both treatment arms. Moderate or severe pain symptoms recurrence on both pain scales was observed in 2 of 17 (11.8%) patients given gestrinone compared with 9 of 17 (52.9%) of those given LA (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.69). Lumbar bone mineral density increased slightly in the gestrinone group but decreased by 3% in the LA one. High-density-lipoprotein cholesterol fell by 25% and lipoprotein(a) decreased by approximately 40% in the gestrinone-treated women but did not vary in those receiving LA.

CONCLUSION(S)

Oral gestrinone is at least as effective as depot LA for pain relief in women with symptomatic endometriosis. A tendency to prolonged pain reduction was observed after gestrinone compared with LA treatment. Gestrinone does not negatively affect bone density but variations in serum lipids need further evaluation.

The biological basis of medical treatment of endometriosis

Efficacy of medical treatment for the management of endometriosis has been documented in several trials, but clinical results cannot always be maintained after the suspension of treatment. Surgical treatment, either laparotomic or laparoscopic, is affected by up to 20% in the recurrence of clinical symptoms after long-term follow-up. The appearance of endometriosis is heterogeneous, its functional status is variable and could lack hormone responsiveness. After medical, surgical or combined treatment the persistence of the failure of defence mechanisms accounts for the recurrence of disease. Unfortunately, all schemes to classify stages of endometriosis have so far failed to identify manifestations of the disease that respond in a predictable way to specific treatments. An analysis of the morphological appearance, implant biological activity and immune system involvement might better define the roles for medical management of endometriosis.

Pain recurrence: a quality of life issue in endometriosis

Studies reveal endometriosis to be present in 38-51% of women undergoing laparoscopy for chronic pelvic pain. Symptoms attributable to endometriosis include dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, generalized pelvic pain, dyschezia, and radiation of pain to the back or leg. Psychological factors may also contribute to a more intense pain experience. Medical therapy provides symptom relief in 72-93% of patients, although recurrence is common following treatment discontinuation. Surgical therapy has had varying results for long-term pain relief; adequacy of the initial surgical treatment appears to be a critical factor. Important adjunctive measures include presacral neurectomy and excisional techniques to remove deep, fibrotic, retroperitoneal lesions. The quality of life of women with endometriosis will improve with greater focus on achieving the long-term relief of pelvic pain. Limitation of pain recurrence would benefit the patient greatly, by providing symptom relief and preventing the cycle of its probably adverse effects on physical activity, work productivity, sexual fulfilment, and mood.