BackgroundEndometriosis, defined as the presence of ectopic endometrial stroma and epithelium, affects approximately 10% of reproductive-age women and can cause pelvic pain and infertility. Endometriotic lesions are considered to be benign inflammatory lesions but have cancerlike features such as local invasion and resistance to apoptosis. MethodsWe analyzed deeply infiltrating endometriotic lesions from 27 patients by means of exomewide sequencing (24 patients) or cancer-driver targeted sequencing (3 patients). Mutations were validated with the use of digital genomic methods in microdissected epithelium and stroma. Epithelial and stromal components of lesions from an additional 12 patients were analyzed by means of a droplet digital polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for recurrent activating KRAS mutations. ResultsExome sequencing revealed somatic mutations in 19 of 24 patients (79%). Five patients harbored known cancer driver mutations in ARID1A, PIK3CA, KRAS, or PPP2R1A, which were validated by Safe...

/pdf/cancer-associated-mutations-in-endometriosis-without-cancer-301ojovrmp.pdf

Cancer-Associated Mutations in Endometriosis without Cancer

Author(s): Johnson, Neil P; Hummelshoj, Lone; Adamson, G David; Keckstein, Jorg; Taylor, Hugh S; Abrao, Mauricio S; Bush, Deborah; Kiesel, Ludwig; Tamimi, Rulla; Sharpe-Timms, Kathy L; Rombauts, Luk; Giudice, Linda C; World Endometriosis Society Sao Paulo Consortium | Abstract: Study questionWhat is the global consensus on the classification of endometriosis that considers the views of women with endometriosis?Summary answerWe have produced an international consensus statement on the classification of endometriosis through systematic appraisal of evidence and a consensus process that included representatives of national and international, medical and non-medical societies, patient organizations, and companies with an interest in endometriosis.What is known alreadyClassification systems of endometriosis, developed by several professional organizations, traditionally have been based on lesion appearance, pelvic adhesions, and anatomic location of disease. One system predicts fertility outcome and none predicts pelvic pain, response to medications, disease recurrence, risks for associated disorders, quality of life measures, and other endpoints important to women and health care providers for guiding appropriate therapeutic options and prognosis.Study design, size, durationA consensus meeting, in conjunction with pre- and post-meeting processes, was undertaken.Participants/materials, setting, methodsA consensus meeting was held on 30 April 2014 in conjunction with the World Endometriosis Society's 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. Rigorous pre- and post-meeting processes, involving 55 representatives of 29 national and international, medical and non-medical organizations from a range of disciplines, led to this consensus statement.Main results and the role of chanceA total of 28 consensus statements were made. Of all, 10 statements had unanimous consensus, however none of the statements was made without expression of a caveat about the strength of the statement or the statement itself. Two statements did not achieve majority consensus. The statements covered women's priorities, aspects of classification, impact of low resources, as well as all the major classification systems for endometriosis. Until better classification systems are developed, we propose a classification toolbox (that includes the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and, where appropriate, the Enzian and Endometriosis Fertility Index staging systems), that may be used by all surgeons in each case of surgery undertaken for women with endometriosis. We also propose wider use of the World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project surgical and clinical data collection tools for research to improve classification of endometriosis in the future, of particular relevance when surgery is not undertaken.Limitations, reasons for cautionThis consensus process differed from that of formal guideline development, although based on the same available evidence. A different group of international experts from those participating in this process may have yielded subtly different consensus statements.Wider implications of the findingsThis is the first time that a large, global, consortium-representing 29 major stake-holding organizations, from 19 countries - has convened to systematically evaluate the best available evidence on the classification of endometriosis and reach consensus. In addition to 21 international medical organizations and companies, representatives from eight national endometriosis organizations were involved, including lay support groups, thus generating and including input from women who suffer from endometriosis in an endeavour to keep uppermost the goal of optimizing quality of life for women with endometriosis.Study funding/competing interestsThe World Endometriosis Society convened and hosted the consensus meeting. Financial support for participants to attend the meeting was provided by the organizations that they represented. There was no other specific funding for this consensus process. Mauricio Abrao is an advisor to Bayer Pharma, and a consultant to AbbVie and AstraZeneca; G David Adamson is the Owner of Advanced Reproductive Care Inc and Ziva and a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Ferring, and AbbVie; Deborah Bush has received travel grants from Fisher a Paykel Healthcare and Bayer Pharmaceuticals; Linda Giudice is a consultant to AbbVie, Juniper Pharmaceutical, and NextGen Jane, holds research grant from the NIH, is site PI on a clinical trial sponsored by Bayer, and is a shareholder in Merck and Pfizer; Lone Hummelshoj is an unpaid consultant to AbbVie; Neil Johnson has received conference expenses from Bayer Pharma, Merck-Serono, and MSD, research funding from AbbVie, and is a consultant to Vifor Pharma and Guerbet; Jorg Keckstein has received a travel grant from AbbVie; Ludwig Kiesel is a consultant to Bayer Pharma, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gedeon Richter, and Shionogi, and holds a research grant from Bayer Pharma; Luk Rombauts is an advisor to MSD, Merck Serono, and Ferring, and a shareholder in Monash IVF. The following have declared that they have nothing to disclose: Kathy Sharpe Timms; Rulla Tamimi; Hugh Taylor.Trial registration numberN/A.

/pdf/world-endometriosis-society-consensus-on-the-classification-v5m48y4h77.pdf

World Endometriosis Society consensus on the classification 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.

/pdf/blood-biomarkers-for-the-non-invasive-diagnosis-of-24d24oqeva.pdf

Blood biomarkers for the non‐invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

Background Endometriosis, a common oestrogen-dependent inflammatory disorder in women of reproductive age, is characterized by endometrial-like tissue outside its normal location in the uterus, which causes pelvic scarring, pain and infertility. While its pathogenesis is poorly understood, the immune system (systemically and locally in endometrium, pelvic endometriotic lesions and peritoneal fluid) is believed to play a central role in its aetiology, pathophysiology and associated morbidities of pain, infertility and poor pregnancy outcomes. However, immune cell populations within the endometrium of women with the disease have had incomplete phenotyping, thereby limiting insight into their roles in this disorder. Objective and rationale The objective herein was to determine reproducible and consistent findings regarding specific immune cell populations and their abundance, steroid hormone responsiveness, functionality, activation states, and markers, locally and systemically in women with and without endometriosis. Search methods A comprehensive English language PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar search was conducted with key search terms that included endometriosis, inflammation, human eutopic/ectopic endometrium, immune cells, immune population, immune system, macrophages, dendritic cells (DC), natural killer cells, mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, B cells and T cells. Outcomes In women with endometriosis compared to those without endometriosis, some endometrial immune cells display similar cycle-phase variation, whereas macrophages (Mo), immature DC and regulatory T cells behave differently. A pro-inflammatory Mo1 phenotype versus anti-inflammatory Mo2 phenotype predominates and natural killer cells display abnormal activity in endometrium of women with the disease. Conflicting data largely derive from small studies, variably defined hormonal milieu and different experimental approaches and technologies. Wider implications Phenotyping immune cell subtypes is essential to determine the role of the endometrial immune niche in pregnancy and endometrial homeostasis normally and in women with poor reproductive history and can facilitate development of innovative diagnostics and therapeutics for associated symptoms and compromised reproductive outcomes.

The endometrial immune environment of women with endometriosis.

The human endometrium is a highly dynamic tissue that is cyclically shed, repaired, regenerated and remodelled, primarily under the orchestration of oestrogen and progesterone, in preparation for embryo implantation. Humans are among the very few species that menstruate and that, consequently, are equipped with unique cellular and molecular mechanisms controlling these cyclic processes. Many reproductive pathologies are specific to menstruating species, and studies in animal models rarely translate to humans. Abnormal remodelling and regeneration of the human endometrium leads to a range of reproductive complications. Furthermore, the processes regulating endometrial remodelling and implantation, including those controlling hormonal impact, breakdown and repair, stem/progenitor cell activation, inflammation and cell invasion have broad applications to other fields. This Review presents current knowledge regarding the normal and abnormal function of the human endometrium. The development of biomarkers for prediction of uterine diseases and pregnancy disorders and future avenues of investigation to improve fertility and enhance endometrial function are also discussed.

Fertile ground: human endometrial programming and lessons in health and disease

https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/132133/World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: III. Fluid biospecimen collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research.pdf

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: III. Fluid biospecimen collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research

S. Mechsner

Papers

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: III. Fluid biospecimen collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research