Noninvasive diagnostic imaging for endometriosis part 1: a systematic review of recent developments in ultrasound, combination imaging, and artificial intelligence

Avery, Jodie C.; Deslandes, Alison; Freger, Shay M.; Leonardi, Mathew; Lo, Glen; Carneiro, Gustavo; Condous, G.; Hull, Mary Louise; Hull, Louise; Carneiro, Gustavo; Avery, Jodie; O’Hara, Rebecca; Condous, George; Knox, Steven; Leonardi, Mathew; Panuccio, Catrina; Sirop, Aisha; Abbott, Jason; Gonzalez-Chica, David; Wang, Hu; Lo, Glen; Chen, Tim; Deslandes, Alison; To, Minh-Son; Zhang, Yuan; Yang, Natalie; Uzuner, Cansu; Holdsworth-Carson, Sarah; Nguyen, Tran; Freger, Shay; Abeygunasekara, Nimantha; Richards, Misha; Simpson, Annie; Voyvodic, Frank; Jenkins, Melissa

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.12.008

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the development of the IDEA protocol (International Deep Endometriosis Analysis) [ 7 ], it has become a basic tool for the diagnosis of suspected endometriosis. Should ultrasound images remain unclear, it is recommended that the next step of examination be performed, namely magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [ 8 ]. Until 2022 and the publishing of new European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guidelines for the management of endometriosis [ 9 ], diagnostic laparoscopy, preferably combined with histopathology material sampling, was the “gold standard” in the diagnosis of endometriosis [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of Serum Arginase-1 Concentrations and Serum Arginase Activity for the Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis

Pliszkiewicz,

Czystowska-Kuzmicz,

Soroczynska

et al. 2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgroud: Endometriosis remains a diagnostic challenge, both clinically and economically, affecting 6% to 15% of women of child-bearing potential. We have attempted to determine whether testing serum concentrations and activity of arginase isoenzymes could be useful for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Methods: This study involved 180 women (105 endometriosis subjects—study group B; 22 subjects with other benign gynaecological conditions—control group 1—K1, both undergoing surgery; and 53 healthy subjects without features of endometriosis—control group 2—K2). Results: Preoperative and postoperative arginase-1 (Arg-1) concentrations were significantly higher in patients, as compared with the control groups K1 (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0005, respectively) and K2 (both p < 0.0001). Similarly, arginase activity was significantly higher in patients than in the control group K1 before surgery and higher than in both control groups after surgery. No significant differences in either Arg-1 concentrations or arginase activity were noted between the operated control group K1 and the non-operated control group K2. A significant postoperative decrease in Arg-1 concentration was observed within both patient (p < 0.0001) and control group K1 (p = 0.0043). Diagnostic performance was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. The threshold for differentiation between endometriosis patients and healthy non-operated controls was 42.3 ng/mL, with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 81%. For differentiation of patients and operated controls with benign gynaecological conditions, the threshold was 78.4 ng/mL, with a sensitivity of 61% and specificity of 95%. Conclusions: We, therefore, conclude that Arg-1 serum concentrations and arginase activity could be considered potential biomarkers for endometriosis but require further studies on larger cohorts of patients.

show abstract