Skip to main content
Download PDF

An integrated multi-tissue approach for endometriosis candidate biomarkers: a systematic review

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology volume 22, Article number: 21 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Biomarker identification could help in deciphering endometriosis pathophysiology in addition to their use in the development of non invasive diagnostic and prognostic approaches, that are essential to greatly improve patient care. Despite extensive efforts, no single potential biomarker or combination has been clinically validated for endometriosis.

Many studies have investigated endometriosis-associated biological markers in specific tissues, but an integrative approach across tissues is lacking. The aim of this review is to propose a comprehensive overview of identified biomarkers based on tissue or biological compartment, while taking into account endometriosis phenotypes (superficial, ovarian or deep, or rASRM stages), menstrual cycle phases, treatments and symptoms.

We searched PubMed and Embase databases for articles matching the following criteria: 'endometriosis' present in the title and the associated term 'biomarkers' found as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms or in all fields. We restricted to publications in English and on human populations. Relevant articles published between 01 January 2005 (when endometriosis phenotypes start to be described in papers) and 01 September 2022 were critically analysed and discussed.

Four hundred forty seven articles on endometriosis biomarkers that included a control group without endometriosis and provided specific information on endometriosis phenotypes are included in this review. Presence of information or adjustment controlling for menstrual cycle phase, symptoms and treatments is highlighted, and the results are further summarized by biological compartment. The 9 biological compartments studied for endometriosis biomarker research are in order of frequency: peripheral blood, eutopic endometrium, peritoneal fluid, ovaries, urine, menstrual blood, saliva, feces and cervical mucus. Adjustments of results on disease phenotypes, cycle phases, treatments and symptoms are present in 70%, 29%, 3% and 6% of selected articles, respectively. A total of 1107 biomarkers were identified in these biological compartments. Of these, 74 were found in several biological compartments by at least two independent research teams and only 4 (TNF-a, MMP-9, TIMP-1 and miR-451) are detected in at least 3 tissues with cohorts of 30 women or more.

Integrative analysis is a crucial step to highlight potential pitfalls behind the lack of success in the search for clinically relevant endometriosis biomarkers, and to illuminate the physiopathology of this disease.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological condition affecting 6%-10% of women of reproductive age [1]. Histologically, endometriosis corresponds to the dissemination of endometrial-like tissue, or lesions, outside the uterus. The reference method to diagnose endometriosis is surgery, through lesion visualisation and anatomical pathology evaluation. Endometriosis staging is currently based on surgeons' observations. The most widely used scoring is from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) that ranges endometriosis from stage I “minimal” to stage IV “severe”, based on lesion localisation, size, appearance and presence of adhesions [2]. Currently, patient management practices promote non-invasive diagnostic methods such as transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [3]. Not all staging features are accessible with non-invasive diagnostic approaches, which makes the ASRM classification difficult to use in this context. An alternative classification defines three phenotypes: superficial peritoneal lesions (located less than 5 mm below the peritoneum), ovarian endometriomas, and deep infiltrating endometriosis (located more than 5 mm below the peritoneum). The last two can usually be detected by imaging.

Clinically, endometriosis is associated with a wide range of symptoms and consequences: pelvic pain, severe pain during periods (dysmenorrhea), painful sex, painful urination (dysuria) and/or defecation (dyschesia), alternance of diarrhea/constipation, heavy menstrual bleeding, mood disorders, chronic fatigue and infertility [4]. Endometriosis is increasingly considered as a systemic disease rather than a pelvic pathology [5].

Because of its complex pathophysiology, symptoms heterogeneity, and diagnostic requirements, diagnosis delay for endometriosis ranges from 4 to 11 years [5]. Biomarker candidate research is therefore a key avenue to improve diagnosis. Despite extensive efforts, no single or combination of biomarkers has reached clinical validation for endometriosis, as extensively reviewed in Cochrane’s reviews in 2016 [6,7,8,9]. While dozens of potential biomarkers have been investigated across varied biological compartments, few have been validated in independent studies, making their relevance unclear. To address this, we propose an original integrative review of the endometriosis biomarker literature across biological compartments. Our hypothesis is that endometriosis biomarkers recurrently identified across multiple tissues may be particularly relevant and play a more direct role in disease physiopathology, and an integrative multi-tissue approach could highlight and prioritize these candidates, which may eventually lead to enhanced patient care. For all considered studies, we highlight if endometriosis subtypes, menstrual cycle phases, treatments and symptoms were accounted for. We particularly focus on biomarkers reproducibly detected by at least two independent research teams, and found in different biological compartments.

Materials and methods

Literature search

Pubmed and Embase (excluding Medline articles) were searched for English-language articles as follows: Endometriosis in the title AND ‘biomarkers’ as Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) or All Fields terms. The strategy was designed in association with the referral Inter-University Library of Medicine of Université Paris Cité, France. All articles involving human subjects and published between 2005/01/01 and 2022/09/01 were selected for screening. The databases were last consulted on 30 September 2022. The review was conducted in accordance with The PRISMA 2020 statement for systematic review and not registered [10]. PRISMA 2020 Checklist is included in Additional Material.

Eligibility criteria and study selection

The study selection strategy is summarized as a flowchart in Fig. 1. Both clinical and basic research studies were considered. A total of 879 original publications were manually screened. At each step of the selection process, titles/abstracts/methods or full-text were screened by 2 independent reviewers (A.B. and one of the other co-authors) regarding eligibility criteria. Discrepancies concerning studies inclusion were resolved by A.B. and L.D. All review articles, editorial, animal subject studies and publications not written in English were excluded. Articles with the two following mandatory inclusion criteria were selected for further evaluation: i) presence of a control group without endometriosis and without malignant diseases, and ii) available information on endometriosis phenotype(s). For the remaining 447 articles, the full text was screened to extract the biomarkers studied, the significance and the direction of the variation observed between control and endometriosis groups and the biological compartment in which these changes were found. Only biomarkers significantly deregulated in endometriosis were considered. Biomarkers deregulated in ectopic endometrium only, and articles focusing exclusively on ectopic endometrium were excluded from this review because ectopic endometrium has no equivalent tissue in the control group. At this step, we obtained a list of 387 articles with 1107 significantly deregulated biomarkers in endometriosis and affected biological compartment(s). This list from the remaining 387 publications, validated independently by 2 reviewers, was reviewed a third time to extract information and/or adjustments for disease phenotypes, menstrual cycle phases, treatments and symptoms, which represent parameters of major importance in endometriosis. A list of candidate biomarkers per compartment was also created. Identified biomarkers and their instances in each compartment were tallied using a custom Perl script identifying unique character strings (case insensitive). To focus on sustained multi-tissue evidence, we selected articles related to the biomarkers identified by at least 2 different research teams (regardless of biological compartment) and across at least 3 biological compartments. For each candidate biomarker, at least one study per compartment including 30 or more controls and 30 or more patients with endometriosis was mandatory. All extracted data were analysed descriptively.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart for the systematic review. Flowchart highlighting the different steps in the selection of articles included in the review, giving details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the analyses carried out

Full size image

Data extraction and analysis

The data related to our final set of candidate biomarkers of interest in this review were extracted from 18 articles (see flowchart in Fig. 1). For each article, the following data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers: the quality of the control groups and the homogeneity of the confounding factors between the groups, the level of expression (mRNA, protein) and the direction and amplitude of variation of the candidate biomarker, the adjustments of the results according to the subtypes of endometriosis, the phase of the menstrual cycle, the treatments and the symptoms and the ROC curve analysis to highlight diagnostic accuracy if available.

Assessment of risk of bias

Due to the great disparity in study designs (clinical and basic research) available for each candidate biomarkers of interest, we did not use ROC curve analysis as a selection criterion to address robustness, but instead included the presence of at least one study per biological compartment including at least 30 individuals per group as a mandatory criterion. For the creation of lists of candidate biomarkers by biological compartments, to avoid computing different aliases of the same gene/protein as different biomarkers, all identified candidate biomarkers were manually curated to unify writing styles and conventions before processing. Aliases were identified through the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) Multi symbol checker tool (https://www.genenames.org/tools/multi-symbol-checker/), replacing 76 aliases by their official gene symbols.

Results

Extensive but heterogeneous studies have explored potential endometriosis biomarkers

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases for research articles on endometriosis biomarkers published between January 2005 and September 2022. Of the 879 publications retrieved after exclusion of duplicates, 278 focused on comparisons i) among endometriosis patients or between tissues in endometriosis patients or ii) between endometriosis and cancer patients (Fig. 1). We excluded these articles since their usability for endometriosis diagnosis is limited. 270 articles did not include information on the patient endometriosis phenotypes according to either the rARSM classification or lesions localization (Fig. 1). These articles were also excluded, as we chose to study how each candidate biomarker was potentially relevant to specific subtypes of patients. In total, we retained 447 publications for further analysis (Additional Table 1), of which 387 identified at least one biomarker with significantly modified levels in endometriosis patients compared to controls (Fig. 1).

Cycle phase, treatments and symptoms are rarely accounted or adjusted for

Information on endometriosis phenotypes was a mandatory inclusion criterion in this study, and 73% of selected publications adjusted the results accordingly, either intentionally or indirectly by including only a particular phenotype (Fig. 2). Biomarker levels can vary with menstrual cycle phases [11], but only 47% of selected publications provided information about cycle phase. Just over half took this parameter into account when analysing the results (Fig. 2), and mainly because surgical teams operated on patients either in the follicular phase or in the luteal phase. Regarding treatments, 42% of articles provided some information (Fig. 2). Non-use of hormonal treatments in the 3 to 6 months prior to inclusion is often specified (and sometimes non-use of anti-inflammatory drugs in the days before inclusion), explaining why only 3% of the analysed publications adjust results for hormonal or symptomatic treatments (anti-inflammatory, painkillers, etc.; Fig. 2). Although endometriosis symptoms are very diverse, this aspect is the least documented, with only 32% of analysed articles taking symptoms into account (Fig. 2). Of these, 17% reported subgroup analyses depending on symptoms (Fig. 2). Infertility, a consequence of endometriosis often regarded as a symptom, was the most commonly considered.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Intermediate analyses carried out on 387 articles. Analyses performed i) on the adjustments of the results according to the subtype of endometriosis, the menstrual cycle phases, the treatments and the symptoms and ii) on the different biological compartments studied

Full size image

One thousand one hundred seven biomarkers identified across nine unequally studied biological compartments

Among 447 retained publications, 387 identified a significant biomarker in at least one biological compartment (Fig. 1 and 2). The majority studied peripheral blood (183 articles, 47,3%) (Fig. 2, Additional Table 2). Other studied compartments were eutopic endometrium (93 articles, 24%), peritoneum and peritoneal fluid (74 articles, 19,1%), ovary (mainly follicular fluid or cumulus cells; 21 articles, 5,4%), urine (12 articles, 3,1%), menstrual blood (2 articles, 0,5%), saliva (2 articles, 0,5%), feces (1 article, 0,3%) and cervical mucus (1 article, 0,3%) (Fig. 2). 444 biomarkers were identified in peripheral blood, 408 in eutopic endometrium, 188 in peritoneum and peritoneal fluid, 96 in compartments related to ovary, 77 in urine, 23 in menstrual blood, 13 in saliva, 6 in feces and 1 in cervical mucus (Additional Table 2). In total, we listed 1107 candidate biomarkers of endometriosis, several of which were identified in different compartments. Interestingly, only a minority were reproducibly found in independent articles within the same compartment (Additional Table 2), questioning the standardisation and reproducibility of endometriosis candidate biomarker studies. Moreover, only 74 were found in several biological compartments by at least two independent research teams (Table 1). These 74 biomarkers significantly modified in endometriosis were classified into molecular subtypes (Table 1) and used for the following selections. The names of the 74 candidate biomarkers identified, their direction of variation in the different biological compartments studied and the cohort sizes of the selected articles are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1 Biomarkers found in different biological compartments by independent teams
Full size table

Cohort sizes are relatively small except for peripheral blood

The majority of selected studies included between 10 and 50 women in each group with and without endometriosis (Fig. 3). Unsurprisingly, all studies including more than 500 women per group focused on peripheral blood. Biological compartments are also very unequally studied in cohorts with 100 to 500 women per group: 84.3% studied peripheral blood, 8.6% eutopic endometrium, 5.7% peritoneal fluid and 1.4% follicular fluid. Biological compartments that can be assessed non-invasively (urine, menstrual blood, saliva, feces, cervical mucus), have not been studied on a large scale.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Cohort size distribution. Analyses performed among the 387 articles kept and illustrating the distribution of studies according to cohort size

Full size image

Only 4 reproducible biomarkers have been consistently detected across tissues in large cohorts

We highlighted 4 candidate biomarkers identified by at least two different research teams in 3 biological compartments or more, with at least one well-powered study per compartment including 30 or more controls and 30 or more patients with endometriosis (Table 2). Here, we summarized the main lines of evidence supporting each of these 4 biomarkers as potential diagnostic elements for endometriosis.

Table 2 Candidate biomarkers found by independent teams in at least 3 biological compartments in large cohort
Full size table

TNF-α

Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), a pro-inflammatory cytokine, was consistently reported as increased in larger cohorts of women with endometriosis in two biological compartments: peritoneal fluid [23, 135], and follicular fluid [34]. In the peritoneal fluid, this increase was further consolidated by consistent results from smaller cohorts [17, 31, 32], although two other studies found no significant differences between women with and without endometriosis [21, 51]. How TNF-α changes in peritoneal fluid tie in with endometriosis phenotypes and menstrual phases was unclear, with reported increases in both stages I/II and III/IV [32], only in stage III/IV with no difference between proliferative and secretory phases, or only in patients with endometrioma and in proliferative phase [135] – some of which may reflect inappropriate statistical power to control for Type II errors when stratifying cohorts. Another increase was also detected in the endometrium at the mRNA level during menstrual phase [24]. While TNF-α was also reported as modified in blood, results were inconsistent, reporting increases [13, 29], decreases [12, 30] or no change [32, 39, 44, 60, 67], both within small or large cohorts. When focusing on large cohorts, increases were observed in serum while the decreases were in plasma, suggesting an importance on the blood collection method (Table 2). Unfortunately, diagnostic accuracy of TNFα was only assessed in blood and yielded low specificity and sensitivity, which is unsurprising in light of the discrepancies across studies.

MMP-9 or MMP-9/NGAL

Enzyme matrix metalloproteinase (MMPs), including MMP-9, are involved in extracellular matrix remodeling via proteolytic activity. They play a key role in physiological (like embryogenesis and wound healing) and pathophysiological (invasion and tissue destruction mechanisms) uterine processes [80]. In this review, we observed that MMP-9 levels appeared to be increased in endometriosis in all studies and regardless of the biological compartment studied. Interestingly, fertility status and menstrual cycle phases do not seem to affect the variations of this biomarker [79,80,81,82, 136]. Although still to be confirmed, the diagnostic value of this biomarker seems to be appropriate [79, 82]. We note that a therapeutic approach to reduce MMP-9 level through progesterone supplementation to improve IVF success rates in endometriosis patients showed promising success, suggesting that MMP-9 may have treatment as well as diagnosis value in endometriosis [81].

TIMP-1

TIMP-1, a metalloproteinase inhibitor, is involved in extracellular matrix remodeling which is particularly intense in ovary during follicular development and cyst formation and in endometrium during dynamic cyclic changes across the menstrual cycle [81]. TIMP-1 showed inconsistent regulation between different biological compartments in women with endometriosis, with reported decreases in blood and ovarian tissue and an increase in peritoneal fluid across well-powered cohorts [22, 81]. Although this remains to be confirmed, this candidate biomarker does not appear discriminative for disease stage and fertility status, but seems impacted by menstrual cycle phases [22].

miR451/miR451a

MiRNAs are small endogenous noncoding functional RNAs [122]. As they are released into the circulation, their interest as biomarkers has been the subject of numerous studies, specific miRNA expression patterns are hallmarks for numerous diseases [122, 123]. These associations between miRNA expression profiles and diseases are often obtained by non-targeted screening (microarray or miRNome sequencing), and their mechanistic roles in physiology or pathophysiology are poorly studied. miR-451 seemed to perform well as a diagnostic marker of endometriosis across different biological fluids and study settings, particularly in combination with other miRNAs [123, 124]. This biomarker does not seem to be correlated with endometriosis severity [22, 123]. Understanding the observed discrepancies in the direction of variation will require studies with systematic adjustments for disease severity, menstrual cycle phases, treatments, symptoms, clinical characteristics of the cohorts and associated comorbidities.

Discussion

Endometriosis biomarker research investigated a large variety of biological compartments so far, some of which are relevant to the local mechanisms of endometriosis pathophysiology (eutopic endometrium, peritoneal fluid, ovary, menstrual blood, cervical mucus), while others approached endometriosis as a systemic disorder resulting in body-wide dysregulations (peripheral blood, urine, feces, saliva). A first valuable outcome of our review was that non-invasively accessible biological compartments (urine, menstrual blood, feces, saliva, cervical mucus) remained drastically understudied despite their potential to transform endometriosis diagnosis. These compartments can address disease modifications both at the systematic and local levels, and deserve more focused attention in the future.

We identified a total of 1107 candidate biomarkers across all nine studied biological compartments, suggesting that endometriosis is potentially associated with widespread molecular modifications. However, agreement between studies, protocols and laboratories was strikingly low, with few candidate markers consistently modified within the same compartment and exhibiting similar directions of change. This suggests that many reported candidate biomarkers were either highly dependent on technical considerations, or represent false positives due to unaccounted confounders. Only 4 of these candidates were reproducibly detected across several compartments by different research teams and with appropriately powered cohorts, and we argued that these markers with widespread modifications should be first-line candidates for investigation in more accessible biological compartments.

As highlighted in this review, the relationships between marker variations and biological compartments were often obscured by uneven consideration of fundamental variables such as disease stage, symptoms, treatments, and menstrual cycle phase. Symptoms and treatments were the major missing elements in many study designs. These variables were rarely analyzed and often absent altogether. Regarding symptomatic treatments (painkillers, anti-inflammatory drugs), neither their effectiveness nor their frequency of use was reported. Menstrual cycle phases were also key variables as many metabolic and regulatory pathways vary throughout the cycle, including one-carbon metabolism [137] and miRNAs [128, 138], but were frequently overlooked. Most articles used the revised ASRM classification to rank phenotypes from endometriosis stage I (minimal) to stage IV (severe) [2]. Deep infiltrating endometriosis is then classified as stage III or IV regardless of the presence of endometrioma. However, presence of endometriomas seems decisive for some biomarkers regulation, especially metabolites. A more accurate classification like ERZIAN scoring may allow for better discrimination between different disease phenotypes [2]. All these parameters may contribute to explain the lack of reproducibility between studies, and standardizing data records may help alleviate this issue in future studies.

The top 4 candidate biomarkers of interest identified here belong to different molecular categories (miRNAs, extra-cellular matrix, and cytokines), and are involved in pathophysiological processes common to many diseases, especially extra-cellular matrix remodeling and inflammation. Previous studies have generally combined elements of the same molecular category together [122, 123], but combinations involving different molecular families are more rarely studied [30]. The 4 candidate biomarkers identified in this work were present in blood, an accessible and relevant biological compartment for diagnostic test development. They have never been combined together to test their diagnostic performance in endometriosis, but their association should be evaluated. Comparing sensitivity and specificity across studies to identify potential combinations of markers of interest remains difficult, as designs and cut-offs varied between studies and between biological compartments. We noted that formal meta-analyses of endometriosis biomarkers were largely absent, and will likely remain challenging due to the heterogeneity in study designs and data collection records that we highlighted above, limiting the reusability of available information.

Finally, this systematic study also came with some limitations. First, and despite our best efforts, we may have missed biomarkers that meet our selection criteria but are listed under different aliases during manual literature curation. We however expect that these instances were rare and did not affect the overarching conclusions of this study. Another important limiting factor was the design of the selected studies, which typically excluded rather than accounted for stratifying parameters of interest. Most of the highlighted adjustments were by exclusion of other categories of patients, for example by including only a single endometriosis phenotype in the cohort, or enrolling women in the same phase of the cycle. In this context, rigorously assessing the impact of adjustment and the differential effects of endometriosis subtypes, cycle phases, symptoms and treatments on biomarker levels remained challenging. Another potential source of bias was the heterogeneity of the control groups, a problem widely recognized for endometriosis research. Indeed, supposedly healthy donors may contain asymptomatic endometriosis patients, while most laparoscopically examined controls with confirmed absence of endometriosis had other gynecological or fertility issues. In most cases, these women presented benign comorbidities (e.g. leiomyomas, ovarian cysts) which were not matched with the case group and may impact the levels of certain markers. While these markers were also of interest to eliminate other diseases during endometriosis diagnosis, they addressed a separate question compared to diagnosing endometriosis at large in the population. A final issue that may interfere with reproducibility concerned the methodology of the studies. At this time, few untargeted studies with large discovery and validation cohorts used omics technologies for high-throughput biomarker discovery. The majority of studies focused on a limited panel of predefined targets and many potential biomarkers were therefore not evaluated. We chose to focus on biomarkers reported by independent research teams and in multiple tissues to improve the relevance and the strength of evidence, but numerous biomarkers were probably unconfirmed because they have not been evaluated so far by independent team and in several compartments.

Conclusion

It appears necessary to rethink endometriosis candidate biomarkers research by designing studies that can be integrated at different levels: i) local and systemic biological compartments; ii) different disease phenotypes with improved characterisation; iii) treatments and their impacts; iv) symptoms; and v) menstrual cycle phases. Access to these parameters will require harmonisation of data collection methods following recommendations of the EPHect project [139]. Such harmonisation would enable meta-analyses, yield a considerable increase in cohort sizes, and facilitate investigations into the effects of these stratifying variables. As endometriosis biomarker discovery remains challenging, sensitivity may be improved by combining biomarkers from different molecular pathways. However, combining biomarkers across biological compartments seems unsustainable in clinical practice, and identifying the most relevant biological compartment remains an important challenge. To this regard, our study pinpoints numerous discrepancies in the results obtained in peripheral blood. Local approaches may lead to more consistent results, as is the case in peritoneal fluid, which can unfortunately not be assessed non-invasively. We therefore highlight the need to further investigate non-invasively accessible biological fluids, especially locally accessible such as menstrual fluid or cervical mucus.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. The code will be made available on request.

Abbreviations

(r)ASRM:

(The revised) American Society for Reproductive Medicine

MeSH:

Medical Subject Headings

TNF-a:

Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha

MMP-9:

Enzyme Matrix MetalloProteinase 9

NGAL:

Neutrophil Gelatinase-associated lipocalin

TIMP-1:

TIMP metallopeptidase inhibitor

miR:

Micro RNA

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

HGNC:

HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee

References

  1. Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Missmer SA. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(13):1244–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson NP, Hummelshoj L, Adamson GD, Keckstein J, Taylor HS, Abrao MS, et al. World Endometriosis Society consensus on the classification of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(2):315–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chapron C, Marcellin L, Borghese B, Santulli P. Rethinking mechanisms, diagnosis and management of endometriosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019;15(11):666–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Saunders PTK, Horne AW. Endometriosis: Etiology, pathobiology, and therapeutic prospects. Cell. 2021;184(11):2807–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor HS, Kotlyar AM, Flores VA. Endometriosis is a chronic systemic disease: clinical challenges and novel innovations. Lancet. 2021;397(10276):839–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gupta D, Hull ML, Fraser I, Miller L, Bossuyt PM, Johnson N, et al. Endometrial biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012165

  7. Nisenblat V, Prentice L, Bossuyt PM, Farquhar C, Hull ML, Johnson N. Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;2016(7). Disponible sur: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012281

  8. Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Shaikh R, Farquhar C, Jordan V, Scheffers CS, et al. Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;2016(5). Disponible sur: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012179

  9. Liu E, Nisenblat V, Farquhar C, Fraser I, Bossuyt PM, Johnson N, et al. Urinary biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;2015(12). Disponible sur: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012019

  10. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;n71. Disponible sur: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

  11. Schisterman EF, Mumford SL, Sjaarda LA. Failure to consider the menstrual cycle phase may cause misinterpretation of clinical and research findings of cardiometabolic biomarkers in premenopausal women. Epidemiol Rev. 2014;36:71–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mihalyi A, Gevaert O, Kyama CM, Simsa P, Pochet N, De Smet F, et al. Non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis based on a combined analysis of six plasma biomarkers. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):654–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Monsanto SP, Edwards AK, Zhou J, Nagarkatti P, Nagarkatti M, Young SL, et al. Surgical removal of endometriotic lesions alters local and systemic proinflammatory cytokines in endometriosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(4):968-977.e5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Matta K, Lefebvre T, Vigneau E, Cariou V, Marchand P, Guitton Y, et al. Associations between persistent organic pollutants and endometriosis: A multiblock approach integrating metabolic and cytokine profiling. Environment International. 2022;158:106926. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0160412021005511

  15. Skrzypczak J, Szczepańska M, Puk E, Kamieniczna M, Kurpisz M. Peritoneal fluid cytokines and sICAM-1 in minimal endometriosis: search for discriminating factors between infertility and/or endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;122(1):95–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Milewski Ł, Dziunycz P, Barcz E, Radomski D, Roszkowski PI, Korczak-Kowalska G, et al. Increased levels of human neutrophil peptides 1, 2, and 3 in peritoneal fluid of patients with endometriosis: association with neutrophils, T cells and IL-8. J Reprod Immunol. 2011;91(1–2):64–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beste MT, Pfäffle-Doyle N, Prentice EA, Morris SN, Lauffenburger DA, Isaacson KB, et al. Molecular network analysis of endometriosis reveals a role for c-Jun-regulated macrophage activation. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(222):222ra16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Borrelli GM, Kaufmann AM, Abrão MS, Mechsner S. Addition of MCP-1 and MIP-3β to the IL-8 appraisal in peritoneal fluid enhances the probability of identifying women with endometriosis. J Reprod Immunol. 2015;109:66–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kocbek V, Vouk K, Bersinger NA, Mueller MD, Lanišnik RT. Panels of cytokines and other secretory proteins as potential biomarkers of ovarian endometriosis. J Mol Diagn. 2015;17(3):325–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Henze D, Doecke WD, Hornung D, Agueusop I, von Ahsen O, Machens K, et al. Endometriosis Leads to an Increased Trefoil Factor 3 Concentration in the Peritoneal Cavity but Does Not Alter Systemic Levels. Reprod Sci. 2017;24(2):258–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jørgensen H, Hill AS, Beste MT, Kumar MP, Chiswick E, Fedorcsak P, et al. Peritoneal fluid cytokines related to endometriosis in patients evaluated for infertility. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1191-1199.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marí-Alexandre J, Barceló-Molina M, Belmonte-López E, García-Oms J, Estellés A, Braza-Boïls A, et al. Micro-RNA profile and proteins in peritoneal fluid from women with endometriosis: their relationship with sterility. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):675-684.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jaeger-Lansky A, Schmidthaler K, Kuessel L, Gstöttner M, Waidhofer-Söllner P, Zlabinger GJ, et al. Local and systemic levels of cytokines and danger signals in endometriosis-affected women. J Reprod Immunol. 2018;130:7–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kyama CM, Overbergh L, Debrock S, Valckx D, Vander Perre S, Meuleman C, et al. Increased peritoneal and endometrial gene expression of biologically relevant cytokines and growth factors during the menstrual phase in women with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(6):1667–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Szubert M, Suzin J, Duechler M, Szuławska A, Czyż M, Kowalczyk-Amico K. Evaluation of selected angiogenic and inflammatory markers in endometriosis before and after danazol treatment. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2014;26(3):414–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Heydari S, Kashani L, Noruzinia M. Dysregulation of Angiogenesis and Inflammatory Genes in Endometrial Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Contribution to Endometriosis. IJAAI. 2021; Disponible sur: http://publish.kne-publishing.com/index.php/IJAAI/article/view/8025

  27. Da Luz CM, Da Broi MG, Koopman L de O, Plaça JR, da Silva-Jr WA, Ferriani RA, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of cumulus cells shows altered pathways in patients with minimal and mild endometriosis. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5775. Disponible sur: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09386-4

  28. Sahraei SS, Davoodi Asl F, Kalhor N, Sheykhhasan M, Fazaeli H, Moud SS, et al. A Comparative Study of Gene Expression in Menstrual Blood-Derived Stromal Cells between Endometriosis and Healthy Women. Xu H, éditeur. BioMed Research International. 2022;2022:1‑11. Disponible sur: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2022/7053521/

  29. Tang T, Lai H, Huang X, Gu L, Shi H. Application of serum markers in diagnosis and staging of ovarian endometriosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(4):1441–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vodolazkaia A, El-Aalamat Y, Popovic D, Mihalyi A, Bossuyt X, Kyama CM, et al. Evaluation of a panel of 28 biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2698–711.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Montagna P, Capellino S, Villaggio B, Remorgida V, Ragni N, Cutolo M, et al. Peritoneal fluid macrophages in endometriosis: correlation between the expression of estrogen receptors and inflammation. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(1):156–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Drosdzol-Cop A, Skrzypulec-Plinta V. Selected cytokines and glycodelin A levels in serum and peritoneal fluid in girls with endometriosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38(10):1245–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhou J, Chern BSM, Barton-Smith P, Phoon JWL, Tan TY, Viardot-Foucault V, et al. Peritoneal Fluid Cytokines Reveal New Insights of Endometriosis Subphenotypes. IJMS. 2020;21(10):3515. Disponible sur: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/10/3515

  34. Wunder DM, Mueller MD, Birkhäuser MH, Bersinger NA. Increased ENA-78 in the follicular fluid of patients with endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(3):336–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mosbah A, Nabiel Y, Khashaba E. Interleukin-6, intracellular adhesion molecule-1, and glycodelin A levels in serum and peritoneal fluid as biomarkers for endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134(3):247–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuessel L, Wenzl R, Proestling K, Balendran S, Pateisky P, Yotova 1st, et al. Soluble VCAM-1/soluble ICAM-1 ratio is a promising biomarker for diagnosing endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4):770–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. O DF, Fassbender A, Van Bree R, Laenen A, Peterse DP, Vanhie A, et al. Technical Verification and Assessment of Independent Validation of Biomarker Models for Endometriosis. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:3673060.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee JC, Kim SH, Oh YS, Kim JH, Lee SR, Chae HD. Increased Expression of Retinol-Binding Protein 4 in Ovarian Endometrioma and Its Possible Role in the Pathogenesis of Endometriosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(11):5827.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Othman EEDR, Hornung D, Salem HT, Khalifa EA, El-Metwally TH, Al-Hendy A. Serum cytokines as biomarkers for nonsurgical prediction of endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;137(2):240–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nasyrova RF, Sotnikova LS, Baystrukova NV, Krivoschchekova GV, Novitsky VV, Kupriyanova IE, et al. Psychoimmune interactions in women of reproductive age with endometriosis. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2011;152(1):93–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mao XD, Hu CY, Zhu MC, Ou HL, Qian YL. Immunological microenvironment alterations in follicles of women with proven severe endometriosis undergoing in vitro fertilization. Mol Biol Rep. 2019;46(5):4675–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nikoo S, Ebtekar M, Jeddi-Tehrani M, Shervin A, Bozorgmehr M, Vafaei S, et al. Menstrual blood-derived stromal stem cells from women with and without endometriosis reveal different phenotypic and functional characteristics. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20(9):905–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martínez S, Garrido N, Coperias JL, Pardo F, Desco J, García-Velasco JA, et al. Serum interleukin-6 levels are elevated in women with minimal-mild endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):836–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Siedentopf F, Tariverdian N, Rücke M, Kentenich H, Arck PC. Immune status, psychosocial distress and reduced quality of life in infertile patients with endometriosis. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2008;60(5):449–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Li S, Fu X, Wu T, Yang L, Hu C, Wu R. Role of Interleukin-6 and Its Receptor in Endometriosis. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:3801–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Maged AM, Deeb WS, El Amir A, Zaki SS, El Sawah H, Al Mohamady M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serum miR-122 and miR-199a in women with endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141(1):14–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang F, Wang H, Jin D, Zhang Y. Serum miR-17, IL-4, and IL-6 levels for diagnosis of endometriosis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(24):e10853.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jiang J, Jiang Z, Xue M. Serum and peritoneal fluid levels of interleukin-6 and interleukin-37 as biomarkers for endometriosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(7):571–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kokot I, Piwowar A, Jędryka M, Sołkiewicz K, Kratz EM. Diagnostic Significance of Selected Serum Inflammatory Markers in Women with Advanced Endometriosis. IJMS. 2021;22(5):2295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Podgaec S, Rizzo LV, Fernandes LFC, Baracat EC, Abrao MS. CD4(+) CD25(high) Foxp3(+) cells increased in the peritoneal fluid of patients with endometriosis. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2012;68(4):301–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wickiewicz D, Chrobak A, Gmyrek GB, Halbersztadt A, Gabryś MS, Goluda M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of interleukin-6 levels in peritoneal fluid for detection of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(4):805–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rakhila H, Al-Akoum M, Bergeron ME, Leboeuf M, Lemyre M, Akoum A, et al. Promotion of angiogenesis and proliferation cytokines patterns in peritoneal fluid from women with endometriosis. J Reprod Immunol. 2016;116:1–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wang XQ, Yu J, Luo XZ, Shi YL, Wang Y, Wang L, et al. The high level of RANTES in the ectopic milieu recruits macrophages and induces their tolerance in progression of endometriosis. J Mol Endocrinol. 2010;45(5):291–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Galleri L, Luisi S, Rotondi M, Romagnani P, Cobellis L, Serio M, et al. Low serum and peritoneal fluid concentration of interferon-gamma-induced protein-10 (CXCL10) in women with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):331–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ahn SH, Khalaj K, Young SL, Lessey BA, Koti M, Tayade C. Immune-inflammation gene signatures in endometriosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1420-1431.e7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Bersinger NA, Dechaud H, McKinnon B, Mueller MD. Analysis of cytokines in the peritoneal fluid of endometriosis patients as a function of the menstrual cycle stage using the Bio-Plex® platform. Arch Physiol Biochem. 2012;118(4):210–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tariverdian N, Siedentopf F, Rücke M, Blois SM, Klapp BF, Kentenich H, et al. Intraperitoneal immune cell status in infertile women with and without endometriosis. J Reprod Immunol. 2009;80(1–2):80–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Fan YY, Chen HY, Chen W, Liu YN, Fu Y, Wang LN. Expression of inflammatory cytokines in serum and peritoneal fluid from patients with different stages of endometriosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018;34(6):507–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lo Turco EG, Souza GHMF, Garcia JS, Ferreira CR, Eberlin MN, Bertolla RP. Effect of endometriosis on the protein expression pattern of follicular fluid from patients submitted to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(7):1755–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lee YH, Cui L, Fang J, Chern BSM, Tan HH, Chan JKY. Limited value of pro-inflammatory oxylipins and cytokines as circulating biomarkers in endometriosis - a targeted ’omics study. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Gmyrek GB, Sozanski R, Jerzak M, Chrobak A, Wickiewicz D, Skupnik A, et al. Evaluation of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 levels in peripheral blood of infertile women with endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;122(2):199–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Agic A, Djalali S, Wolfler MM, Halis G, Diedrich K, Hornung D. Combination of CCR1 mRNA, MCP1, and CA125 measurements in peripheral blood as a diagnostic test for endometriosis. Reprod Sci. 2008;15(9):906–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fairbanks F, Abrão MS, Podgaec S, Dias JAJ, de Oliveira RM, Rizzo LV. Interleukin-12 but not interleukin-18 is associated with severe endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):320–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Karakus S, Sancakdar E, Akkar O, Yildiz C, Demirpence O, Cetin A. Elevated Serum CD95/FAS and HIF-1α Levels, but Not Tie-2 Levels, May Be Biomarkers in Patients With Severe Endometriosis: A Preliminary Report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(4):573–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Eidukaite A, Siaurys A, Tamosiunas V. Aberrant expression of CD95 and CD69 molecules among CD56 cells in women with endometriosis. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2006;55(4):276–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Gogacz M, Gałczyński K, Wojtaś M, Winkler I, Adamiak A, Romanek-Piva K, et al. Fas-Related Apoptosis of Peritoneal Fluid Macrophages in Endometriosis Patients: Understanding the Disease. J Immunol Res. 2017;2017:3175394.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Choi YS, Kim S, Oh YS, Cho S, Hoon KS. Elevated serum interleukin-32 levels in patients with endometriosis: A cross-sectional study. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2019;82(2):e13149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Abramiuk M, Grywalska E, Korona-Głowniak I, Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej P, Polak G, Kotarski J, et al. Cd200 and cd200r expression on peripheral blood lymphocytes and serum cd200 concentration as a new marker of endometriosis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(9):1‑24. Disponible sur: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L2005120074&from=export

  69. Wu L, Lv C, Su Y, Li C, Zhang H, Zhao X, et al. Expression of programmed death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 is upregulated in endometriosis and promoted by 17beta-estradiol. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(3):251–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Olkowska-Truchanowicz J, Bocian K, Maksym RB, Białoszewska A, Włodarczyk D, Baranowski W, et al. CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ regulatory T cells in peripheral blood and peritoneal fluid of patients with endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1):119–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Chen H, Qin S, Lei A, Li X, Gao Q, Dong J, et al. Expansion of monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells in endometriosis patients: A pilot study. Int Immunopharmacol. 2017;47:150–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tran LVP, Tokushige N, Berbic M, Markham R, Fraser IS. Macrophages and nerve fibres in peritoneal endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(4):835–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Takebayashi A, Kimura F, Kishi Y, Ishida M, Takahashi A, Yamanaka A, et al. Subpopulations of macrophages within eutopic endometrium of endometriosis patients. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2015;73(3):221–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Caserta D, Di Benedetto L, Bordi G, D’Ambrosio A, Moscarini M. Levels of Galectin-3 and Stimulation Expressed Gene 2 in the peritoneal fluid of women with endometriosis: a pilot study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30(12):877–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Yang H, Yin J, Ficarrotta K, Hsu SH, Zhang W, Cheng C. Aberrant expression and hormonal regulation of Galectin-3 in endometriosis women with infertility. J Endocrinol Invest. 2016;39(7):785–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Cho S, Park SH, Choi YS, Seo SK, Kim HY, Park KH, et al. Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 in eutopic endometrium and ovarian endometriotic tissue in women with severe endometriosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010;69(2):93–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. da Luz CM, da Broi MG, Donabela FC, Paro de Paz CC, Meola J, Navarro PA. PTGS2 down-regulation in cumulus cells of infertile women with endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(4):379–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Li F, Alderman MH 3rd, Tal A, Mamillapalli R, Coolidge A, Hufnagel D, et al. Hematogenous Dissemination of Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Endometriosis. Stem Cells. 2018;36(6):881–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Bostanci Durmus A, Dincer Cengiz S, Yılmaz H, Candar T, Gursoy AY, Sinem CG. The levels of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin in different stages of endometriosis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;39(7):991–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Liu H, Wang J, Wang H, Tang N, Li Y, Zhang Y, et al. The plasma and peritoneal fluid concentrations of matrix metalloproteinase-9 are elevated in patients with endometriosis. Ann Clin Biochem. 2016;53(Pt 5):599–605.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Singh AK, Chattopadhyay R, Chakravarty B, Chaudhury K. Altered circulating levels of matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9 and their inhibitors and effect of progesterone supplementation in women with endometriosis undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility. 2013;100(1):127–134.e1. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S001502821300407X

  82. Becker CM, Louis G, Exarhopoulos A, Mechsner S, Ebert AD, Zurakowski D, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases are elevated in the urine of patients with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2343–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Chen X, Liu H, Sun W, Guo Z, Lang J. Elevated urine histone 4 levels in women with ovarian endometriosis revealed by discovery and parallel reaction monitoring proteomics. J Proteomics. 2019;204:103398.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. De Sanctis P, Elmakky A, Farina A, Caramelli E, Seracchioli R, Mabrouk M, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase-3 mRNA: a promising peripheral blood marker for diagnosis of endometriosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71(2):118–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Mabrouk M, Elmakky A, Caramelli E, Farina A, Mignemi G, Venturoli S, et al. Performance of peripheral (serum and molecular) blood markers for diagnosis of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(5):1307–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Zhao L, Gu C, Ye M, Zhang Z, Han W, Fan W, et al. Identification of global transcriptome abnormalities and potential biomarkers in eutopic endometria of women with endometriosis: A preliminary study. Biomed Rep. 2017;6(6):654‑62. Disponible sur: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L616122978&from=export

  87. Vallvé-Juanico J, López-Gil C, Ponomarenko J, Melnychuk T, Castellví J, Ballesteros A, et al. External validation of putative biomarkers in eutopic endometrium of women with endometriosis using NanoString technology. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(12):2981‑7. Disponible sur: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01965-6

  88. Cho S, Ahn YS, Choi YS, Seo SK, Nam A, Kim HY, et al. Endometrial osteopontin mRNA expression and plasma osteopontin levels are increased in patients with endometriosis. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2009;61(4):286–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Zheng Q, Lu J, Li R, Hu C, Liu P. Elevated periostin in serum and peritoneal washing fluids as potential biomarkers for endometriosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(11):900–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Ganieva U, Nakamura T, Osuka S, Bayasula, Nakanishi N, Kasahara Y, et al. Involvement of Transcription Factor 21 in the Pathogenesis of Fibrosis in Endometriosis. Am J Pathol. 2020;190(1):145–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Rokhgireh S, Mehdizadeh Kashi A, Chaichian S, Delbandi AA, Allahqoli L, Ahmadi-Pishkuhi M, et al. The Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Enolase/Cr, CA125, and CA19–9 in the Detection of Endometriosis. BioMed Research International. 2020;2020:1‑9. Disponible sur: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2020/5208279/

  92. Amaral VF do, Ferriani RA, Silva de Sán MF, Nogueira AA, Rosa e Silva JC, Rosa e Silva ACJ de S, et al. Positive correlation between serum and peritoneal fluid CA-125 levels in women with pelvic endometriosis. Sao Paulo Med J. 2006;124(4):223–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Florio P, Reis FM, Torres PB, Calonaci F, Abrao MS, Nascimento LL, et al. High serum follistatin levels in women with ovarian endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(10):2600–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Matalliotakis IM, Goumenou AG, Mulayim N, Karkavitsas N, Koumantakis EE. High concentrations of the CA-125, CA 19–9 and CA 15–3 in the peritoneal fluid between patients with and without endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005;271(1):40–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Tuten A, Kucur M, Imamoglu M, Kaya B, Acikgoz AS, Yilmaz N, et al. Copeptin is associated with the severity of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(1):75–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. OG Onur Güralp SA Serdar Acikgöz NT Nevin Tüten 2020 Evaluation of Serum Endocan Levels in Endometriosis: A case-control study Clin Ter. (6):517 22https://doi.org/10.7417/CT.2020.2266

  97. Draj HA, Abbas AAH, Abdullah TH. Serum and Urine Levels of Cytokeratin-19 in Endometriosis. Ann Trop Med Public Health. 2020;23(14). Disponible sur: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L2008495859&from=export

  98. Tokushige N, Markham R, Crossett B, Ahn SB, Nelaturi VL, Khan A, et al. Discovery of a novel biomarker in the urine in women with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):46–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Holzer I, Machado Weber A, Marshall A, Freis A, Jauckus J, Strowitzki T, et al. GRN, NOTCH3, FN1, and PINK1 expression in eutopic endometrium - potential biomarkers in the detection of endometriosis - a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet. Nov2020;37(11):2723–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Regiani T, Cordeiro FB, da Costa L do VT, Salgueiro J, Cardozo K, Carvalho VM, et al. Follicular fluid alterations in endometriosis: label-free proteomics by MS(E) as a functional tool for endometriosis. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2015;61(5):263–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Goteri G, Altobelli E, Tossetta G, Zizzi A, Avellini C, Licini C, et al. High temperature requirement A1, transforming growth factor beta1, phosphoSmad2 and Ki67 in eutopic and ectopic endometrium of women with endometriosis. Eur J Histochem. 2015;59(4):2570.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Park JS, Lee JH, Kim M, Chang HJ, Hwang KJ, Chang KH. Endometrium from women with endometriosis shows increased proliferation activity. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1246–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Song Y, Xiao L, Fu J, Huang W, Wang Q, Zhang X, et al. Increased expression of the pluripotency markers sex-determining region Y-box 2 and Nanog homeobox in ovarian endometriosis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Murgia F, Angioni S, D’Alterio MN, Pirarba S, Noto A, Santoru ML, et al. Metabolic Profile of Patients with Severe Endometriosis: a Prospective Experimental Study. Reprod Sci. 2021;28(3):728–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Dutta M, Joshi M, Srivastava S, Lodh I, Chakravarty B, Chaudhury K. A metabonomics approach as a means for identification of potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of endometriosis. Mol Biosyst. 2012;8(12):3281–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Dutta M, Singh B, Joshi M, Das D, Subramani E, Maan M, et al. Metabolomics reveals perturbations in endometrium and serum of minimal and mild endometriosis. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):6466.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Pocate-Cheriet K, Santulli P, Kateb F, Bourdon M, Maignien C, Batteux F, et al. The follicular fluid metabolome differs according to the endometriosis phenotype. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(6):1023–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Vicente-Muñoz S, Morcillo I, Puchades-Carrasco L, Payá V, Pellicer A, Pineda-Lucena A. Nuclear magnetic resonance metabolomic profiling of urine provides a noninvasive alternative to the identification of biomarkers associated with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(5):1202–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Li J, Guan L, Zhang H, Gao Y, Sun J, Gong X, et al. Endometrium metabolomic profiling reveals potential biomarkers for diagnosis of endometriosis at minimal-mild stages. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16(1):42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Vicente-Muñoz S, Morcillo I, Puchades-Carrasco L, Payá V, Pellicer A, Pineda-Lucena A. Pathophysiologic processes have an impact on the plasma metabolomic signature of endometriosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(7):1733-1741.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Moberg C, Bourlev V, Ilyasova N, Olovsson M. Levels of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and αB-crystallin in eutopic endometrium in relation to pregnancy in women with endometriosis. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2015;18(1):30–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Colón-Caraballo M, García M, Mendoza A, Flores I. Human Endometriosis Tissue Microarray Reveals Site-specific Expression of Estrogen Receptors, Progesterone Receptor, and Ki67. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019;27(7):491–500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Seeber B, Sammel MD, Fan X, Gerton GL, Shaunik A, Chittams J, et al. Panel of markers can accurately predict endometriosis in a subset of patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(5):1073–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Sánchez-Ferrer ML, Jiménez-Velázquez R, Mendiola J, Prieto-Sánchez MT, Cánovas-López L, Carmona-Barnosi A, et al. Accuracy of anogenital distance and anti-Müllerian hormone in the diagnosis of endometriosis without surgery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;144(1):90–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Lemos NA, Arbo E, Scalco R, Weiler E, Rosa V, Cunha-Filho JS. Decreased anti-Müllerian hormone and altered ovarian follicular cohort in infertile patients with mild/minimal endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(5):1064–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Carrarelli P, Rocha ALL, Belmonte G, Zupi E, Abrão MS, Arcuri F, et al. Increased expression of antimüllerian hormone and its receptor in endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1353–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Bourlev V, Larsson A, Olovsson M. Elevated levels of fibroblast growth factor-2 in serum from women with endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(3):755–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Vodolazkaia A, Yesilyurt BT, Kyama CM, Bokor A, Schols D, Huskens D, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in endometriosis: genetic variants and plasma biomarkers. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(4):988–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Mohamed ML, El Behery MM, Mansour SAEA. Comparative study between VEGF-A and CA-125 in diagnosis and follow-up of advanced endometriosis after conservative laparoscopic surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(1):77–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Reis FM, Luisi S, Abrão MS, Rocha ALL, Viganò P, Rezende CP, et al. Diagnostic value of serum activin A and follistatin levels in women with peritoneal, ovarian and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1445–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Hou Z, Sun L, Gao L, Liao L, Mao Y, Liu J. Cytokine array analysis of peritoneal fluid between women with endometriosis of different stages and those without endometriosis. Biomarkers. 2009;14(8):604–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Cosar E, Mamillapalli R, Ersoy GS, Cho S, Seifer B, Taylor HS. Serum microRNAs as diagnostic markers of endometriosis: a comprehensive array-based analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):402–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Moustafa S, Burn M, Mamillapalli R, Nematian S, Flores V, Taylor HS. Accurate diagnosis of endometriosis using serum microRNAs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct2020;223(4):557.e1-557.e11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Wang L, Zhang J, Sun H, Ji X, Zhang S. Effect of miR-451 on IVF/ICSI-ET outcome in patient with endometriosis and infertility. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(11):13051–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Gao S, Liu S, Gao ZM, Deng P, Wang DB. Reduced microRNA-451 expression in eutopic endometrium contributes to the pathogenesis of endometriosis. WJCC. 2019;7(16):2155‑64. Disponible sur: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v7/i16/2155.htm

  126. Li X, Zhang W, Fu J, Xu Y, Gu R, Qu R, et al. MicroRNA-451 is downregulated in the follicular fluid of women with endometriosis and influences mouse and human embryonic potential. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17(1):96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Wang WT, Zhao YN, Han BW, Hong SJ, Chen YQ. Circulating microRNAs identified in a genome-wide serum microRNA expression analysis as noninvasive biomarkers for endometriosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(1):281–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Vanhie A, O D, Peterse D, Beckers A, Cuéllar A, Fassbender A, et al. Plasma miRNAs as biomarkers for endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(9):1650–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Nabiel Y, ELshahawy H, Mosbah A. Intrauterine Bacterial Colonization and Endometrial MicroRNA-17–5p Levels in Association to Endometriosis: A Study in an Egyptian Population. Immunol Invest. 2020;49(6):611–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Cho S, Mutlu L, Grechukhina O, Taylor HS. Circulating microRNAs as potential biomarkers for endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(5):1252-1260.e1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Perricos A, Proestling K, Husslein H, Kuessel L, Hudson QJ, Wenzl R, et al. Hsa-mir-135a Shows Potential as A Putative Diagnostic Biomarker in Saliva and Plasma for Endometriosis. Biomolecules. 2022;12(8):1144. Disponible sur: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/12/8/1144

  132. Hwang JH, Oh JJ, Wang T, Jin YC, Lee JS, Choi JR, et al. Identification of biomarkers for endometriosis in eutopic endometrial cells from patients with endometriosis using a proteomics approach. Mol Med Rep. 2013;8(1):183–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Wölfler MM, Meinhold-Heerlein IM, Söhngen L, Rath W, Knüchel R, Neulen J, et al. Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis in peritoneal fluid samples identifies differential protein regulation in patients suffering from peritoneal or ovarian endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(8):2764–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Bokor A, Kyama CM, Vercruysse L, Fassbender A, Gevaert O, Vodolazkaia A, et al. Density of small diameter sensory nerve fibres in endometrium: a semi-invasive diagnostic test for minimal to mild endometriosis. Hum Reprod déc. 2009;24(12):3025–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Zhou L, Chen Y, Gao J, Shankar S, Zhang G. Diagnostic Value of Circulating MicroRNAs for Endometriosis: a Meta-analysis. Reprod Sci. 2020;27(3):793–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Sahraei SS, Davoodi Asl F, Kalhor N, Sheykhhasan M, Fazaeli H, Moud SS, et al. A Comparative Study of Gene Expression in Menstrual Blood-Derived Stromal Cells between Endometriosis and Healthy Women. Xu H, éditeur. BioMed Research International. 2022;2022:1‑11. Disponible sur: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2022/7053521/

  137. Kim R, Nijhout HF, Reed MC. One-carbon metabolism during the menstrual cycle and pregnancy. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(12):e1009708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. MacGregor KA, Rodriguez-Sanchez N, Di Virgilio TG, Barwell ND, Gallagher IJ, Moran CN. Changes in adipose tissue microRNA expression across the menstrual cycle in regularly menstruating females: a pilot study. Physiol Genomics. 2022;54(1):1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Vitonis AF, Vincent K, Rahmioglu N, Fassbender A, Buck Louis GM, Hummelshoj L, et al. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and biobanking harmonization project: II. Clinical and covariate phenotype data collection in endometriosis research. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;102(5):1223‑32. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0015028214018858

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Inter-University Library of Medicine (BIUM) of Paris for methodological support.

Funding

A. B. and C. B. are supported by funds from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 851360).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut Pasteur, Université Paris Cité, CNRS UMR 3525, INSERM UA12, Comparative Functional Genomics Group, Paris, 75015, France

    Axelle Brulport & Camille Berthelot

  2. Université Paris Cité, Institut Cochin, INSERM, CNRS, F-75014, Paris, France

    Mathilde Bourdon, Daniel Vaiman, Christian Drouet, Khaled Pocate-Cheriet, Kheira Bouzid, Louis Marcellin, Pietro Santulli, Carole Abo, Maxime Jeljeli, Sandrine Chouzenoux, Charles Chapron, Frédéric Batteux & Ludivine Doridot

  3. Département de Gynécologie, Obstétrique et Médecine de la Reproduction, AP-HP, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, F-75014, Paris, France

    Mathilde Bourdon, Louis Marcellin, Pietro Santulli, Carole Abo & Charles Chapron

  4. Université de Paris, Faculté de Santé, Faculté de Médecine Paris Centre, Paris, France, Service de Biologie de la Reproduction - CECOS, AP-HP, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, Paris, 75014, France

    Christian Drouet & Khaled Pocate-Cheriet

  5. Service d’Immunologie Biologique, AP-HP, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, Paris, F-75014, France

    Maxime Jeljeli & Frédéric Batteux

Authors
  1. Axelle Brulport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathilde Bourdon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Vaiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Drouet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Khaled Pocate-Cheriet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kheira Bouzid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Louis Marcellin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Pietro Santulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Carole Abo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maxime Jeljeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sandrine Chouzenoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Charles Chapron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Frédéric Batteux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Camille Berthelot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ludivine Doridot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were actively involved in the preparation of the manuscript (conceptualization: A.B., L.D.; systematic literature search: A.B, M.B., D.V., C.D. K.P.C., K.B., L.M., P.S., C.A. M.J., S.C., C.C, F.B., C.B., L.D. ; selection and data review: A.B, L.D; manuscript and figure preparation: A.B., L.D.; manuscript review: A.B., M.B., D.V., C.D., C.B., L.D).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axelle Brulport.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Additional material. 

PRISMA checklist

Additional file 2: 

Additional Table 1. References of the 447 selected articles

Additional file 3: Additional Table 2. 

Quantitative summary of significantly modified biomarkers in endometriosis identified by biological compartment

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brulport, A., Bourdon, M., Vaiman, D. et al. An integrated multi-tissue approach for endometriosis candidate biomarkers: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 22, 21 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-023-01181-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-023-01181-8

Keywords

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology

ISSN: 1477-7827

Contact us