Biomarkers for Endometriosis in Saliva, Urine, and Peritoneal Fluid

Gueye, Ndeye-Aicha; Stanhiser, Jamie; Valentine, Lindsey N.; Kotlyar, Alexander; Goodman, Linnea R.; Falcone, Tommaso

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59856-7_8

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several urinary peptides and proteins were analyzed for their potential as biomarkers, but further studies are required, with larger sample sizes, in a more diverse population [140]. Creatinine-corrected soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase (sFlt-1) is one of these promising urinary biomarkers for endometriosis.…”

Section: Urinary Biomarkers In Endometriosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Anastasiu

Moga

Neculau

et al. 2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Early and accurate diagnosis of endometriosis is crucial for the management of this benign, yet debilitating pathology. Despite the advances of modern medicine, there is no common ground regarding the pathophysiology of this disease as it continues to affect the quality of life of millions of women of reproductive age. The lack of specific symptoms often determines a belated diagnosis. The gold standard remains invasive, surgery followed by a histopathological exam. A biomarker or a panel of biomarkers is easy to measure, usually noninvasive, and could benefit the clinician in both diagnosing and monitoring the treatment response. Several studies have advanced the idea of biomarkers for endometriosis, thereby circumventing unnecessary invasive techniques. Our paper aims at harmonizing the results of these studies in the search of promising perspectives on early diagnosis. Methods: We selected the papers from Google Academic, PubMed, and CrossRef and reviewed recent articles from the literature, aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of various putative serum and urinary biomarkers for endometriosis. Results: The majority of studies focused on a panel of biomarkers, rather than a single biomarker and were unable to identify a single biomolecule or a panel of biomarkers with sufficient specificity and sensitivity in endometriosis. Conclusion: Noninvasive biomarkers, proteomics, genomics, and miRNA microarray may aid the diagnosis, but further research on larger datasets along with a better understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms are needed.

show abstract

Section: Urinary Biomarkers In Endometriosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Anastasiu

Moga

Neculau

et al. 2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides, the tests are used to detect ovarian tumors as well [ 17 , 19 , 20 ]. In view of the fact that surgery is expensive and ridden with risks, and the validity of blood biomarkers has not been confirmed yet, some authors have investigated biomarkers in other body fluids such as saliva, peritoneal fluid [ 21 , 22 ], and urine for their ability to detect endometriosis noninvasively [ 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Enolase/Cr, CA125, and CA19-9 in the Detection of Endometriosis

Rokhgireh

Kashi

Chaichian

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The present study was designed to verify the accuracy of the noninvasive biomarkers enolase/Cr, CA125, and CA19-9 as a clinical diagnostic tool for the detection of endometriosis. Methods. A cross-sectional study was performed at Rasool-e-Akram Hospital affiliated to Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, from April 2015 to April 2018. Eighty-six women were scheduled to undergo laparoscopy due to chronic pelvic pain, infertility, pelvic mass, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Serum and urine samples of all patients were collected preoperatively. Serum levels of CA125 and CA19-9, and urine levels of enolase-1 were measured. Serum levels of CA125 and CA19-9 were determined by the electrochemiluminescence method (ECL). Urinary enolase-1 was measured by the ELISA method. Result. Serum levels of CA125 and CA19-9 were significantly higher in the endometriosis group than in controls (p<0.001, p=0.004, respectively). Levels of enolase I and enolase/Cr were higher in patients with endometriosis, but the differences were not statistically significant. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of combined enolase/Cr, CA125, and CA19-9 were 65%, 66.6%, 71%, and 60.1%, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of combined enolase/Cr, CA125, and CA19-9 was 1.94 and 0.52, respectively. The area under the ROC curve for enolase/Cr+CA125+CA19−9 was 0.675 (95% confidence interval 0.573-0.710). Conclusion. The present study revealed that concurrent measurement of enolase-1, CA125, and CA19-9 might be a valuable noninvasive test for the identification of endometriosis.

show abstract

“…Typically, a biomarker is a characteristic that may be any substance, structure, or process in the body or its products and can be objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of biological processes, normal or pathogenic, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic Adapted from Espada et al 7 and Taylor et al 10 Table 2: Potential peripheral biomarkers for endometriosis. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Target material Name of the molecule(s) Markers may be specific to type and stage of the disease, and more correlated to specific symptom(s) of the disease (e.g., pain, infertility). None of these markers are fool-proof.…”

Section: Diagnostic Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 2 provides a list of potential peripheral biomarkers of endometriosis. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Urinary Biomarkers…”

Section: Urinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 In a comprehensive review analysing reported studies on the differential expression of urinary proteins as biomarkers of endometriosis, Gueye et al drew a similar conclusion. 15 The results of a proteomic study indicated elevated histone 4 as a potential biomarker. 16 Also, a combination of four urinary proteins, namely histone 4, ADPribosylation factor 3, ribophorin 1, and myosin heavy chain 10 reflects significant promise of diagnostic value.…”

Section: Urinementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining Diagnostic Options and Classification Systems Available for Endometriosis

Ghosh

Sengupta

2021

EMJ Repro Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Endometriosis is characterised by the presence of endometrium-like tissue outside the uterus, and is often associated with chronic pelvic pain, infertility, and compromised quality of life. Development of reliable methods of early diagnosis, staging, and classification of endometriosis would allow for restriction of disease progression by its early detection and strategising towards its early treatment and management. Diagnostic options: Typically, diagnosis and staging of endometriosis include a history and physical examination followed by clinical, imaging, and laparoscopic findings. Surgical inspection of lesions at laparoscopy with histological confirmation remains the most reliable procedure towards the detection of endometriosis and its classification. Although there are many putative peripheral biomarkers having potential diagnostic values for endometriosis, further studies are necessary for their validation. Classification systems: Based on anatomical, clinical, imaging, and several pathophysiological findings, various classifications and staging systems of endometriosis, e.g., revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM), ENZIAN, Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) and Foci–Ovarian endometrioma–Adhesion–Tubal endometriosis–Inflammation (FOATI) scoring systems, have so far been postulated. However, there is no fool-proof diagnostic and classification approach available for the disease due to the general failure of current systems to reflect reproducible correlation with the major symptoms of endometriosis. Conclusion: A ‘toolbox approach’, using all the available diagnostic and classification systems maximising the information available to healthcare providers and females, is a recent recommendation. Development of collaborative research networks for the harmonisation of patient information, biological sample collection, and its storage, and that of methodological and analytical tools in a wider patient base is necessary to discover reliable leads for future diagnostic options and a classification system for endometriosis.

show abstract

Biomarkers for Endometriosis in Saliva, Urine, and Peritoneal Fluid

Cited by 3 publications

References 75 publications

Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Enolase/Cr, CA125, and CA19-9 in the Detection of Endometriosis

Examining Diagnostic Options and Classification Systems Available for Endometriosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About