Multicenter evaluation of blood-based biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis and adenomyosis: A prospective non-interventional study.
CA-125
S100-A12
adenomyosis
blood-based biomarkers
diagnosis
endometriosis
sFRP-4
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Aug 2023
28 Aug 2023
Historique:
revised:
01
08
2023
received:
16
05
2023
accepted:
02
08
2023
medline:
28
8
2023
pubmed:
28
8
2023
entrez:
28
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate blood-based biomarkers to detect endometriosis and/or adenomyosis across nine European centers (June 2014-April 2018). This prospective, non-interventional study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of 54 blood-based biomarker immunoassays in samples from 919 women (aged 18-45 years) with suspicion of endometriosis and/or adenomyosis versus symptomatic controls. Endometriosis was stratified by revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine stage. Symptomatic controls were "pathologic symptomatic controls" or "pathology-free symptomatic controls". The main outcome measure was receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve (ROC-AUC) and Wilcoxon P values corrected for multiple testing (q values). CA-125 performed best in "all endometriosis cases" versus "all symptomatic controls" (AUC 0.645, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.600-0.690, q < 0.001) and increased (P < 0.001) with disease stage. In "all endometriosis cases" versus "pathology-free symptomatic controls", S100-A12 performed best (AUC 0.692, 95% CI 0.614-0.769, q = 0.001) followed by CA-125 (AUC 0.649, 95% CI 0.569-0.729, q = 0.021). In "adenomyosis only cases" versus "symptomatic controls" or "pathology-free symptomatic controls", respectively, the top-performing biomarkers were sFRP-4 (AUC 0.615, 95% CI 0.551-0.678, q = 0.045) and S100-A12 (AUC 0.701, 95% CI 0.611-0.792, q = 0.004). This study concluded that no biomarkers tested could diagnose or rule out endometriosis/adenomyosis with high certainty.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Roche Diagnostics GmbH
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Moradi M, Parker M, Sneddon A, Lopez V, Ellwood D. Impact of endometriosis on women's lives: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2014;14:123.
Hudelist G, Fritzer N, Thomas A, et al. Diagnostic delay for endometriosis in Austria and Germany: causes and possible consequences. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3412-3416.
Fourquet J, Sinaii N, Stratton P, et al. Characteristics of women with endometriosis from the USA and Puerto Rico. J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2015;7(4):129-135.
Staal AH, van der Zanden M, Nap AW. Diagnostic delay of endometriosis in The Netherlands. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2016;81(4):321-324.
Soliman AM, Fuldeore M, Snabes MC. Factors associated with time to endometriosis diagnosis in the United States. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(7):788-797.
All Party Parliamentary Group on Endometriosis. Endometriosis in the UK: time for change. APPG on endometriosis inquiry report 2020. Accessed September 2022. https://www.endometriosis-uk.org/sites/endometriosis-k.org/files/files/Endometriosis%20APPG%20Report%20Oct%202020.pdf
Nnoaham KE, Hummelshoj L, Webster P, et al. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):366-373.e368.
Agarwal SK, Chapron C, Giudice LC, et al. Clinical diagnosis of endometriosis: a call to action. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(4):354.e1-354.e12.
rASRM. Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(5):817-821.
Dunselman GAJ, Vermeulen N, Becker C, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(3):400-412.
National Institue for Health and Care Excellence. NICE guideline: endometriosis: diagnosis and management 2017. Accessed August 9, 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng73/resources/endometriosis-diagnosis-and-management-pdf-1837632548293
Burghaus S, Schäfer SD, Beckmann MW, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2k level, AWMF Registry Number 015/045, August 2020). Geburtsh Frauenheilk. 2021;81(4):422-446.
Singh SS, Suen MW. Surgery for endometriosis: beyond medical therapies. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):549-554.
Albee RB, Sinervo K, Fisher DT. Laparoscopic excision of lesions suggestive of endometriosis or otherwise atypical in appearance: relationship between visual findings and final histologic diagnosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(1):32-37.
Chapron C, Vannuccini S, Santulli P, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis: an integrated clinical and imaging approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(3):392-411.
Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20(4):569-582.
Taran FA, Wallwiener M, Kabashi D, et al. Clinical characteristics indicating adenomyosis at the time of hysterectomy: a retrospective study in 291 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1571-1576.
Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, Brockwell SE, Schocken M, Johnston JM. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril. 2009;91(1):201-206.
Rahmioglu N, Fassbender A, Vitonis AF, et al. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: III. Fluid biospecimen collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1233-1243.
Fassbender A, Rahmioglu N, Vitonis AF, et al. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project: IV. Tissue collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1244-1253.
Miller LM, Johnson NP. EPHect - the Endometriosis Phenome (and Biobanking) Harmonisation Project - may be very helpful for clinicians and the women they are treating. F1000Res. 2017;6:14.
Laux-Biehlmann A, d'Hooghe T, Zollner TM. Menstruation pulls the trigger for inflammation and pain in endometriosis. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2015;36(5):270-276.
Rouam S. False discovery rate (FDR). In: Dubitzky W, Wolkenhauer O, Cho K-H, Yokota H, eds. Encyclopedia of Systems Biology. Springer; 2013:731-732.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Statist Soc Series B Methodol. 1995;57(1):289-300.
Bischl B, Lang M, Kotthoff L, et al. mlr: machine learning in R. J Mach Learn Res. 2016;17(170):1-5.
Greenbaum H, Galper B-EL, Decter DH, Eisenberg VH. Endometriosis and autoimmunity: can autoantibodies be used as a non-invasive early diagnostic tool? Autoimmun Rev. 2021;20(5):102795.
Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Shaikh R, et al. Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(5):CD012179.
Luisi S, Pinzauti S, Regini C, Petraglia F. Serum markers for the noninvasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Womens Health (Lond). 2015;11(5):603-610.
Oliveira MAP, Raymundo TS, Soares LC, Pereira TRD, Demôro AVE. How to use CA-125 more effectively in the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:9857196.
Kitawaki J, Ishihara H, Koshiba H, et al. Usefulness and limits of CA-125 in diagnosis of endometriosis without associated ovarian endometriomas. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(7):1999-2003.
Mol BWJ, Bayram N, Lijmer JG, et al. The performance of CA-125 measurement in the detection of endometriosis: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(6):1101-1108.
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. ESHRE guideline endometriosis, Ed [website]. 2013. Accessed September 2022. https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Endometriosis-guideline
Maiorana A, Cicerone C, Niceta M, Alio L. Evaluation of serum CA 125 levels in patients with pelvic pain related to endometriosis. Int J Biol Markers. 2007;22(3):200-202.
Cheng Y-M, Wang S-T, Chou C-Y. Serum CA-125 in preoperative patients at high risk for endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(3):375-380.
Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(9):1315-1316.
Sharma I, Dhawan V, Saha SC, Rashmi B, Dhaliwal LK. Implication of the RAGE-EN-RAGE axis in endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;110(3):199-202.
Delaney MA, Wan Y-W, Kim G-E, et al. A role for progesterone-regulated sFRP4 expression in uterine leiomyomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(9):3316-3326.
Taran FA, Weaver AL, Coddington CC, Stewart EA. Characteristics indicating adenomyosis coexisting with leiomyomas: a case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(5):1177-1182.
Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Hull ML. Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2(2):CD009591.
Guerriero S, Saba L, Pascual MA, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(5):586-595.
Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, Baracat EC, Abrão MS, Kho RM. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(2):257-264.
Bendifallah S, Suisse S, Puchar A, et al. Salivary MicroRNA signature for diagnosis of endometriosis. J Clin Med. 2022;11(3):612.
Chen WC, Cheng CM, Liao WT, Chang TC. Urinary biomarkers for detection of clinical endometriosis or adenomyosis. Biomedicines. 2022;10(4):833.