It Is Necessary to Purpose an Add-on to the American Classification of Endometriosis? This Disease Can Be Compared to a Malignant Proliferation While Remaining Benign in Most Cases. EndoGram® Is a New Profile Witness of Its Evolutionary Potential

Endometriosis is a curious pathology that has been the topic of many international publications. Its etiology remains mysterious but seems to have multiple causes. It is a complex disease whose lesions are very heterogeneous in where they can occur (deep endometriosis, superficial, ovarian cyst), extent, associated symptoms, evolution or aggressiveness of the disease, and response to treatments. Furthermore, it evolves in pushes, remains autonomous, and is responsible for both superficial and deep lesions that explain its two most well know challenges: pain and infertility. It has always been classified by the size of its anatomical lesions—Acosta classification (1), revised by the American fertility society (AFS) (2), and the American society of reproductive medicine (ASRM) classification with a description of the disease at different stages: minimal (score of 1 to 5), mild (3–12), moderate (16 to 40), and severe (>40) (13). If this classification provides a complete repertoire of implants (anatomic) (10), the attribution of points is arbitrary. In fact, the size of the lesions is not synonymous with the difficulty to treat them surgically. Their location, if deep, is larger than the size of ovarian endometriomas. In addition, small anatomical but evaluative lesions will have a larger impact than big fibrous and stable lesions (Figure 1). Thus, attempts to explain their inflammatory side effects have been proposed (14, 15). The French classification nodule, ovaries, adhesions, tube, and inflammation (FOATI) (10) has had the merit of taking this phenomenon into account. In our opinion, we must go much further and propose an amendment in this classification, taking into account the evolution of the lesions and their deep molecular biology because in reality, the lesions are not at the same stage.

HMGA1 and HMGA2 rearrangements in mass-forming endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disorder characterized by ectopic endometrium associated with pelvic pain and infertility. The pathogenesis of endometriosis is unclear, and several genetic, endocrine, immune, and environmental agents have been studied as putative causative factors. However, consistent somatic genetic alterations have not been identified. Rarely, endometriosis presents as a mass lesion with an infiltrative pattern reminiscent of malignancy. We describe cytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic findings of mass-forming endometriosis. The index case of pulmonary endometriosis underwent conventional and molecular cytogenetics analysis. In addition, 16 cases of mass-forming endometriosis, 11 cases of usual endometriosis, and six endometriomas were investigated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for HMGA1 and HMGA2 loci, performed on paraffin-embedded thin tissue sections with custom-designed probes. The index patient had an endometriotic lung nodule, with a 46,XX, t(5;6)(q13;p21) karyotype and HMGA1 rearrangement by FISH. A second patient had decidualized endometriosis forming a large abdominal mass and HMGA1 rearrangement by FISH. Of the 15 other cases of mass-forming endometriosis, one had HMGA1 rearrangement and two had HMGA2 rearrangement. The rearrangements were found in the stromal component exclusively. None of the usual endometriosis cases or endometriomas had HMGA1 or HMGA2 rearrangements. In conclusion, mass-forming endometriosis is an uncommon subset of endometriosis that harbors HMGA1 or HMGA2 rearrangements in up to 29% of cases. The present findings support the concept that endometriosis is clonal and that rearrangement of HMGA genes likely contributes to its pathogenesis.

Molecular mechanisms and biological plausibility underlying the malignant transformation of endometriosis: a critical analysis

Although population-based studies have unequivocally reported an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women with endometriosis, the biological evidence supporting the idea of endometriosis as a preneoplastic condition is scanty and not well substantiated. The fundamental features of human neoplasms (monoclonal growth, genetic changes, mutations in tumour suppressor genes and replicative advantage) have been evaluated in endometriotic lesions but results obtained are discordant. It is plausible that ectopic glands may expand monoclonally but the entity of this phenomenon is debated. According to some allelotyping studies, from one-third to one-half of endometriosis lesions would harbour somatic genetic changes in chromosomal regions supposed to contain genes involved in ovarian tumourigenesis, especially for the endometrioid histotype. These findings would be consistent with the progression model for carcinogenesis from the benign precursor to ovarian cancer but they could not be unequivocally replicated. Gene mutational studies are rare in this context. A single group has found missense mutations and deletions of PTEN gene in about 20% of ovarian endometriotic cysts. Moreover, in a model of genetically engineered mice harbouring an oncogenic allele of K-ras resulting in benign lesions reminiscent of endometriosis, a conditional deletion of PTEN caused the progression towards the endometrioid tumour. Based on these data, the causal link between endometriosis and ovarian endometrioid/clear cell carcinomas remains to be defined both in terms of entity of association and of underlying molecular mechanisms.