Clinical Outcome Analysis and Correlation of Reproductive Outcome with Endometriosis Fertility Index in Laparoscopically Managed Endometriosis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Endometriosis Classification, Staging and Reporting Systems: A Review on the Road to a Universally Accepted Endometriosis Classification

OBJECTIVE

In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. Which endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published and validated for use in clinical practice?

DATA SOURCES

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

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

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

CONCLUSION

Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated for the purpose for which they were developed. The literature search was limited to PUBMED. Unpublished classification, staging or reporting systems, or those published in books were not considered. It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes. This overview of existing systems is a first step in working towards a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LARGE SCALE DATA

NA.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NA.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

What is new?

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

Pathophysiological Basis of Endometriosis-Linked Stress Associated with Pain and Infertility: A Conceptual Review

Women with endometriosis are often under stress due to the associated pain, infertility, inflammation-related and other comorbidities including cancer. Additionally, these women are also under stress due to taboos, myths, inter-personal troubles surrounding infertility and pain of the disease as well as due to frequent incidences of missed diagnosis and treatment recurrence. Often these women suffer from frustration and loss of valuable time in the prime phase of life. All these complexities integral to endometriosis posit a hyperstructure of integrative stress physiology with overt differentials in effective allostatic state in women with disease compared with disease-free women. In the present review, we aim to critically examine various aspects of pathophysiological basis of stress surrounding endometriosis with special emphasis on pain and subfertility that are known to affect the overall health and quality of life of women with the disease and promising pathophysiological basis for its effective management.

An assessment of the multifactorial profile of steroid-metabolizing enzymes and steroid receptors in the eutopic endometrium during moderate to severe ovarian endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of expression profiles of major endometrial effectors of steroid physiology in endometriosis have yielded markedly conflicting conclusions, presumably because the relative effects of type of endometriosis, fertility history and menstrual cycle phases on the measured variables were not considered. In the present study, endometrial mRNA and protein levels of several effectors of steroid biosynthesis and action in patients with stage III-IV ovarian endometriosis (OE) with known fertility and menstrual cycle histories were compared with the levels in control endometrium to test this concept.

METHODS

Endometrial samples were collected from patients without endometriosis (n = 32) or OE stages III-IV (n = 52) with known fertility and cycle histories. qRT-PCR and immunoblotting experiments were performed to measure levels of NR5A1, STAR, CYP19A1, HSD17Bs, ESRs and PGR transcripts and proteins, respectively. Tissue concentrations of steroids (P4, T, E1 and E2) were measured using ELISAs.

RESULTS

The levels of expression of aromatase and ERβ were lower (P < 0.0001) and 17β-HSD1 (P < 0.0001) and PRA (P < 0.01) were higher in OE endometrium. Lower aromatase levels and higher 17β-HSD1 levels were detected in fertile (aromatase: P < 0.05; 17β-HSD1: P < 0.0001) and infertile (aromatase: P < 0.0001; 17β-HSD1: P < 0.0001) OE endometrium than in the matched control tissues. Both proliferative (PP) and secretory (SP) phase OE samples expressed aromatase (P < 0.0001) and ERβ (PP: P < 0.001; SP: P < 0.01) at lower levels and 17β-HSD1 (P < 0.0001) and PRA (PP: P < 0.01; SP: P < 0.0001) at higher levels than matched controls. Higher 17β-HSD1 (P < 0.01) and E2 (P < 0.05) levels and a lower (P < 0.01) PRB/PRA ratio was observed in infertile secretory phase OE endometrium than in control.

CONCLUSIONS

We report that dysregulated expression of 17β-HSD1 and PGR resulting in hyperestrogenism and progesterone resistance during the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle, rather than an anomaly in aromatase expression, was the hallmark of eutopic endometrium from infertile OE patients. Furthermore, the results provide proof of concept that the fertility and menstrual cycle histories exerted relatively different effects on steroid physiology in the endometrium from OE patients compared with the control subjects.