Thrombospondin-1 serum levels do not correlate with pelvic pain in patients with ovarian endometriosis

How Do Microorganisms Influence the Development of Endometriosis? Participation of Genital, Intestinal and Oral Microbiota in Metabolic Regulation and Immunopathogenesis of Endometriosis

Microorganisms inhabiting the human body play an extremely key role in its proper functioning, as well as in the development of the immune system, which, by maintaining the immune balance, allows you to enjoy health. Dysbiosis of the intestinal microbiota, or in the oral cavity or reproductive tract, understood as a change in the number and diversity of all microorganisms inhabiting them, may correlate with the development of many diseases, including endometriosis, as researchers have emphasized. Endometriosis is an inflammatory, estrogen-dependent gynecological condition defined by the growth of endometrial cells outside the uterine cavity. Deregulation of immune homeostasis resulting from microbiological disorders may generate chronic inflammation, thus creating an environment conducive to the increased adhesion and angiogenesis involved in the development of endometriosis. In addition, research in recent years has implicated bacterial contamination and immune activation, reduced gastrointestinal function by cytokines, altered estrogen metabolism and signaling, and abnormal progenitor and stem cell homeostasis, in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. The aim of this review was to present the influence of intestinal, oral and genital microbiota dysbiosis in the metabolic regulation and immunopathogenesis of endometriosis.

Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

About 10% of reproductive-aged women suffer from endometriosis, a costly chronic disease causing pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive or minimally invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis. Although other reviews have assessed the ability of blood tests to diagnose endometriosis, this is the first review to use Cochrane methods, providing an update on the rapidly expanding literature in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate blood biomarkers as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and as triage tests to inform decisions on surgery for endometriosis. Specific objectives include:1. To provide summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of blood biomarkers for the diagnosis of peritoneal, ovarian and deep infiltrating pelvic endometriosis, compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard.2. To assess the diagnostic utility of biomarkers that could differentiate ovarian endometrioma from other ovarian masses.

SEARCH METHODS

We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. We searched CENTRAL to July 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2015, as well as these databases to 20 April 2015: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, DARE and PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered published, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size, including prospectively collected samples from any population of reproductive-aged women suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of one or more blood biomarkers with the findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of data from each study. For each diagnostic test, we classified the data as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis, and we calculated sensitivity and specificity estimates. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient datasets were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful blood test to replace diagnostic surgery were a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.79 to detect endometriosis. We set the criteria for triage tests at a sensitivity of ≥ 0.95 and a specificity of ≥ 0.50, which 'rules out' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a negative test result (SnOUT test), or a sensitivity of ≥ 0.50 and a specificity of ≥ 0.95, which 'rules in' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a positive result (SpIN test).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 141 studies that involved 15,141 participants and evaluated 122 blood biomarkers. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. Studies evaluated the blood biomarkers either in a specific phase of the menstrual cycle or irrespective of the cycle phase, and they tested for them in serum, plasma or whole blood. Included women were a selected population with a high frequency of endometriosis (10% to 85%), in which surgery was indicated for endometriosis, infertility work-up or ovarian mass. Seventy studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of 47 blood biomarkers for endometriosis (44 single-marker tests and 30 combined tests of two to six blood biomarkers). These were angiogenesis/growth factors, apoptosis markers, cell adhesion molecules, high-throughput markers, hormonal markers, immune system/inflammatory markers, oxidative stress markers, microRNAs, tumour markers and other proteins. Most of these biomarkers were assessed in small individual studies, often using different cut-off thresholds, and we could only perform meta-analyses on the data sets for anti-endometrial antibodies, interleukin-6 (IL-6), cancer antigen-19.9 (CA-19.9) and CA-125. Diagnostic estimates varied significantly between studies for each of these biomarkers, and CA-125 was the only marker with sufficient data to reliably assess sources of heterogeneity.The mean sensitivities and specificities of anti-endometrial antibodies (4 studies, 759 women) were 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.87) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.00). For IL-6, with a cut-off value of > 1.90 to 2.00 pg/ml (3 studies, 309 women), sensitivity was 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.75) and specificity was 0.69 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.82). For CA-19.9, with a cut-off value of > 37.0 IU/ml (3 studies, 330 women), sensitivity was 0.36 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.45) and specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99).Studies assessed CA-125 at different thresholds, demonstrating the following mean sensitivities and specificities: for cut-off > 10.0 to 14.7 U/ml: 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.82); for cut-off > 16.0 to 17.6 U/ml: 0.56 (95% CI 0.24, 0.88) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.75, 1.00); for cut-off > 20.0 U/ml: 0.67 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.80); for cut-off > 25.0 to 26.0 U/ml: 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.79) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77); for cut-off > 30.0 to 33.0 U/ml: 0.62 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.00); and for cut-off > 35.0 to 36.0 U/ml: 0.40 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.49) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.94).We could not statistically evaluate other biomarkers meaningfully, including biomarkers that were assessed for their ability to differentiate endometrioma from other benign ovarian cysts.Eighty-two studies evaluated 97 biomarkers that did not differentiate women with endometriosis from disease-free controls. Of these, 22 biomarkers demonstrated conflicting results, with some studies showing differential expression and others no evidence of a difference between the endometriosis and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Of the biomarkers that were subjected to meta-analysis, none consistently met the criteria for a replacement or triage diagnostic test. A subset of blood biomarkers could prove useful either for detecting pelvic endometriosis or for differentiating ovarian endometrioma from other benign ovarian masses, but there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions. Overall, none of the biomarkers displayed enough accuracy to be used clinically outside a research setting. We also identified blood biomarkers that demonstrated no diagnostic value in endometriosis and recommend focusing research resources on evaluating other more clinically useful biomarkers.

Investigation of sialylation aberration in N-linked glycopeptides by lectin and tandem labeling (LTL) quantitative proteomics

The accuracy in quantitative analysis of N-linked glycopeptides and glycosylation site mapping in cancer is critical to the fundamental question of whether the aberration is due to changes in the total concentration of glycoproteins or variations in the type of glycosylation of proteins. Toward this goal, we developed a lectin-directed tandem labeling (LTL) quantitative proteomics strategy in which we enriched sialylated glycopeptides by SNA, labeled them at the N-terminus by acetic anhydride ((1)H(6)/(2)D(6)) reagents, enzymatically deglycosylated the differentially labeled peptides in the presence of heavy water (H(2)(18)O), and performed LC/MS/MS analysis to identify glycopeptides. We successfully used fetuin as a model protein to test the feasibility of this LTL strategy not only to find true positive glycosylation sites but also to obtain accurate quantitative results on the glycosylation changes. Further, we implemented this method to investigate the sialylation changes in prostate cancer serum samples as compared to healthy controls. Herein, we report a total of 45 sialylated glycopeptides and an increase of sialylation in most of the glycoproteins identified in prostate cancer serum samples. Further quantitation of nonglycosylated peptides revealed that sialylation is increased in most of the glycoproteins, whereas the protein concentrations remain unchanged. Thus, LTL quantitative technique is potentially an useful method for obtaining simultaneous unambiguous identification and reliable quantification of N-linked glycopeptides.