Technical Verification and Assessment of Independent Validation of Biomarker Models for Endometriosis

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

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

Evaluation of new biomarkers in stage III and IV endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of new endometriosis biomarkers in diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

Thirty women with Stage III-IV endometriosis who were given an indication for surgery and 49 control patients were compared. Preoperative and postoperative serum levels of Annexin A5 (ANXA5), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and Ca-125 measurements were compared.

RESULTS

AUCs of ANXA5, sICAM-1, IL-6, TNF-α, VCAM-1, VEGF biomarkers were not found to be significant in diagnosing endometriosis when evaluated alone (p > 0.05). Only the AUC of the Ca-125 biomarker values were found to be significant with 73% sensitivity and 98% specificity (p < 0.001). However, when Ca-125 and ANXA5 were evaluated together, it was concluded that the diagnosis of endometriosis could be made with 73% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

CONCLUSION

When Ca-125 and ANXA5 are evaluated together, it seems to be more valuable than Ca-125 alone in diagnosing endometriosis.

Endometriosis biomarkers of the disease: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endometriosis is a complex benign gynaecologic condition with heterogenous presentations and a large impact on the global healthcare system and on the quality of life for millions of women. Currently, the gold standard for diagnosis involves direct visualization of lesions during surgery confirmed by histopathological diagnosis, resulting in an average delay in its initial diagnosis of 8-10 years. Therefore, the search for noninvasive diagnostic testing options has been subject to a large body of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple potential biomarkers have been explored for noninvasive testing for endometriosis, including glycoproteins, inflammatory cytokines, immunological molecules, angiogenesis markers, hormones, micro RNAs (miRNAs), proteomics, metabolomics, genomics and the microbiome.

SUMMARY

Although there are challenges to consider, areas for real promise and advancement in the noninvasive diagnosis of endometriosis are currently being explored with real promise in the area of miRNAs, proteomics, metabolomics, genomics and the microbiome.

Metformin Alleviates Endometriosis and Potentiates Endometrial Receptivity via Decreasing VEGF and MMP9 and Increasing Leukemia Inhibitor Factor and HOXA10

Background: Endometriosis affects endometrial receptivity, a key factor for successful embryo implantation. Metformin treatment is associated with alleviating the symptoms of endometriosis; however the mechanism of metformin action is unclear. Neoangiogenesis plays an important role in the development and recurrence of endometriosis. In addition, the leukemia inhibitor factor (LIF) and HOXA10 genes are also distinguishing markers of endometriosis (decrease) and endometrial receptivity (increase). This study investigated the therapeutic potentials of metformin and the underlying mechanism using an in vivo rat endometriosis model.

Methods: Female Wistar albino mature rats with experimentally induced endometriosis were used in this study. Metformin was administered at doses of 100 mg/kg/d and 200 mg/kg/d. The volume of endometriotic implants was assessed. The protein and mRNA expression of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), the endometrial receptivity markers, LIF and HOXA10, were measured in the endometrium of rats with endometriosis.

Results: Metformin treatment significantly suppressed the growth of endometriotic implants. Further, the expression of VEGF and MMP-9 protein and mRNA in endometriotic implants were significantly reduced. Metformin also significantly upregulated LIF and HOXA10 expression in endometrium from rats with endometriosis. The inhibitory effect of metformin on the growth of endometriotic implants, VEGF and MMP-9, and upregulating effect on LIF and HOXA10, was optimal at a dose of 100 mg/kg/d.

Conclusion: Our in vivo data demonstrates that metformin treatment alleviates endometriosis and potentiates endometrial receptivity. The underlying mechanisms are associated with decreased expression of VEGF and MMP-9 genes and upregulation of the LIF and HOXA10 genes. The effect of metformin was optimal at 100 mg/kg/d. These findings provide a potential alternative for women with endometriosis with the potential to increase fertility. Metformin is an approved drug by FDA for diabetes and this study may add another potential clinical use for metformin.

Blood tests for prediction of deep endometriosis: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

Deep endometriosis (DE) is the most aggressive subtype of endometriosis. The diagnosis may be challenging, and no biomarkers that can discriminate women with DE from those without DE have been developed.

AIM

To evaluate the role of blood hemostatic parameters and inflammatory indices in the prediction of DE.

METHODS

This case-control study was performed at the Women’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine between January 2015 and December 2016. Women with DE and women with benign gynecologic disease (control group) eligible for gynecological surgery were enrolled. Routine plasma hemostatic parameters and inflammatory indices were obtained before surgery. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated, and areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated to assess the predictive values of the selected parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 126 women were enrolled, including 31 with DE and 95 controls. Plasma fibrinogen (Fg, P < 0.01), international normalized ratio (P < 0.05), and C-reactive protein levels (P < 0.01) were significantly higher in women with DE compared with controls. Plasma hemoglobin (HB) levels (P < 0.05) and shortened thrombin time (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in women with DE than in controls. Plasma Fg levels [adjusted OR (aOR) 2.12, 95%confidence interval (CI): 1.31-3.75] and plasma HB levels (aOR 0.48, 95%CI: 0.29-0.78) were significantly associated with DE (both P < 0.05). ROC analysis showed that the diagnostic value of Fg or HB alone for DE was limited. The AUC of the combination of both markers as a dual marker index was 0.773 with improved sensitivity (67.7%) and specificity (78.9%) at cutoffs of 3.09 g/L and 126 g/L, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of Fg and HB was a reliable predictor of DE. A larger study is needed to confirm the findings.

The Potential of Non-Invasive Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis of Asymptomatic Patients with Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a disease that affects women of reproductive age and has a significantly negative impact on their well-being. The main symptoms are dysmenorrhoea, chronic pelvic pain and infertility. In many patients the diagnostic process is very long and can take up to 8-12 years. Laparoscopy, an invasive method, is still necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Therefore, development of more effective diagnostic markers appears to be of the utmost importance for early diagnosis of endometriosis and provision of appropriate treatment. From a clinical point of view, detection of early-stage endometriosis in asymptomatic patients is an ideal situation since early diagnosis of endometriosis may delay the onset of symptoms as well as prevent progression and complications. In the meantime, Cancer Antigen 125 (CA-125) is still the most frequently studied and used marker. Other glycoproteins, growth factors and immune markers seem to play an important role. However, the search for an ideal endometriosis marker is still underway. Further studies into the pathogenesis of endometriosis will help to identify biomarkers or sets of biomarkers with the potential to improve and speed up the diagnostic process in a non-invasive way.

Current biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis

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

Challenges in uncovering non-invasive biomarkers of endometriosis

Endometriosis affects up to 10% of women of childbearing age, causing symptoms that can include chronic pelvic pain and reduced fertility. The symptoms are not specific to the disease and can be confused with other gynecological conditions or normal menstruation. Currently, the disease can be only definitively diagnosed by laparoscopy, as no clinically accepted biomarker exists. Biomarker discovery can either follow a hypothesis-driven approach selecting targets to be tested based on current knowledge of the disease, or take an unbiased high-throughput screening “omics” approach, such as transcriptomics or proteomics, to identify markers that are unique or elevated in accessible bodily fluids of patients with the disease. Numerous studies have been conducted using these approaches to try and identify endometriosis biomarkers, but variabilities in study design, cohort selection, and analysis, together with the fact that most studies were small-scale, have made independent validation of biomarker candidates difficult. Therefore, efforts are underway to standardize cohort selection, patient data, and sample collection to allow better cross-study comparisons. Large scale multi-center studies using this standardized approach are necessary to validate existing endometriosis biomarker candidates and uncover potential new markers. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease, it is likely that a panel of biomarkers will be necessary to diagnose and categorize endometriosis.

Endometriosis in Menopause-Renewed Attention on a Controversial Disease

Endometriosis, an estrogen-dependent inflammatory disease characterized by the ectopic presence of endometrial tissue, has been the topic of renewed research and debate in recent years. The paradigm shift from the belief that endometriosis only affects women of reproductive age has drawn attention to endometriosis in both premenarchal and postmenopausal patients. There is still scarce information in literature regarding postmenopausal endometriosis, the mostly studied and reported being the prevalence in postmenopausal women. Yet, other important issues also need to be addressed concerning diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management. We aimed at summarizing the currently available data in literature in order to provide a concise and precise update regarding information available on postmenopausal endometriosis.