Endometrioma in Adolescents and Future Reproductive Health

Patient experiences of endometriosis diagnosis: A mixed methods approach

OBJECTIVE

To examine patient-described experiences of endometriosis diagnosis.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study.

SETTING

Online patient-led endometriosis support groups.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

People with endometriosis aged over 18.

METHODS

A survey with qualitative and quantitative questions was distributed through online patient-led endometriosis support groups. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. Quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated to examine patient experiences of endometriosis diagnosis across age groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Experiences of endometriosis diagnosis among people with endometriosis.

RESULTS

A total of 2017 people with endometriosis from 63 countries responded to the questionnaire. Patients experienced an average delay of 3.7 years between symptom onset and first presentation of symptoms to a physician (the care-seeking delay) and an average delay of 5.8 years between first presentation of symptoms to a physician and diagnosis of endometriosis (the healthcare-related delay). Patients experienced an average total diagnostic delay of 9.6 years. Participants aged over 35 at the time of the study reported significantly longer times to receive an endometriosis diagnosis (mean 10.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.2-11.2) compared with participants age 18-24 (6.8, 95% CI 6.1-7.5 years). The qualitative analysis identified the following themes: physicians normalised endometriosis symptoms, patients felt their symptoms were ignored by physicians because they were considered unreliable, and participant character attributes (e.g. age, appearance, weight or physical ability) led to clinician dismissal.

CONCLUSIONS

People with endometriosis of all age groups reported pervasive negative healthcare experiences during their adolescence. Patients experience delays in seeking care and in receiving a diagnosis once presenting for care.

Age‐dependent phenotypes of ovarian endometriomas

Purpose

To analyze the characteristics of the ovarian endometrioma (OE) across the life span of a woman. In the past, the OE has traditionally been viewed as a single, monolithic disease. Today, there are emerging data indicating that OE phenotypes differ according to the age of the woman.

Method

A narrative review of original articles on OE indexed by PubMed.

Results

When appearing in infancy and early adolescence, OE may be the consequence of endometrial cells retrogradely shed with neonatal uterine bleeding. The post‐menarcheal variant, manifesting itself during full adolescence, is singularly frequent in the presence of vaginal or uterine outflow obstructive anomalies. The typical and most frequent adult phenotype is characterized by increasing fibrosis and a tendency to progress; its mere presence exerts a detrimental effect on the surrounding healthy ovarian tissue. In postmenopause, an old lesion may be reactivated in the presence of exogenous or endogenous estrogens, or even be produced ex novo; rarely, it can spread to a variety of organs and structures and even degenerate causing malignancies.

Conclusions

Given the existence of these variants, it is important to agree on management guidelines that take into consideration these different phenotypes.

Traditionally, ovarian endometriomas are considered rightfully as one subtype of endometriosis that is different from other subtypes. Beyond that, it is considered as a monolithic disease entity. In this review, we synthesized published data and argue that this subtype actually has age‐dependent phenotypes, and as such, management should be ideally tailored to achieve the best results.

Progress in the diagnosis and management of adolescent endometriosis: an opinion

Increasing evidence indicates that early onset endometriosis (EOE), starting around menarche or early adolescence, may have an origin different from the adult variant, originating from neonatal uterine bleeding (NUB). This implies seeding of naïve endometrial progenitor cells into the pelvic cavity with NUB; these can then activate around thelarche. It has its own pathophysiology, symptomatology and risk factors, warranting critical management re-evaluation. It can also be progressive, endangering future reproductive capacity. This variant seems to be characterized by the presence of ovarian endometrioma. Today, the diagnosis of endometriosis in young patients is often delayed for years; if rapidly progressive, it can severely affect pelvic organs, even in the absence of serious symptoms. Given the predicament, great attention must be paid to symptomatology that is often non-specific, justifying a search for new, simple, non-invasive markers of increased risk. Better use of modern imaging techniques will aid considerably in screening for the presence of EOE. Traditional laparoscopy should be limited to cases in which imaging gives rise to suspicion of severity and a stepwise, minimally invasive approach should be used, followed by medical treatment to prevent recurrence. In conclusion, EOE represents a condition necessitating early diagnosis and stepwise management, including medical treatment.