Cited by 189Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

Evaluation of a panel of 28 biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis

Vodolazkaia, A., El-Aalamat, Y., Popovic, D., Mihalyi, A., Bossuyt, X., Kyama, C. M., Fassbender, A., Bokor, A. +10 more·2012·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: At present, the only way to conclusively diagnose endometriosis is laparoscopic inspection, preferably with histological confirmation. This contributes to the delay in the diagnosis of endometriosis which is 6-11 years. So far non-invasive diagnostic approaches such as ultrasound (US), MRI or blood tests do not have sufficient diagnostic power. Our aim was to develop and validate a non-invasive diagnostic test with a high sensitivity (80% or more) for symptomatic endometriosis patients, without US evidence of endometriosis, since this is the group most in need of a non-invasive test. METHODS: A total of 28 inflammatory and non-inflammatory plasma biomarkers were measured in 353 EDTA plasma samples collected at surgery from 121 controls without endometriosis at laparoscopy and from 232 women with endometriosis (minimal-mild n = 148; moderate-severe n = 84), including 175 women without preoperative US evidence of endometriosis. Surgery was done during menstrual (n = 83), follicular (n = 135) and luteal (n = 135) phases of the menstrual cycle. For analysis, the data were randomly divided into an independent training (n = 235) and a test (n = 118) data set. Statistical analysis was done using univariate and multivariate (logistic regression and least squares support vector machines (LS-SVM) approaches in training- and test data set separately to validate our findings. RESULTS: In the training set, two models of four biomarkers (Model 1: annexin V, VEGF, CA-125 and glycodelin; Model 2: annexin V, VEGF, CA-125 and sICAM-1) analysed in plasma, obtained during the menstrual phase, could predict US-negative endometriosis with a high sensitivity (81-90%) and an acceptable specificity (68-81%). The same two models predicted US-negative endometriosis in the independent validation test set with a high sensitivity (82%) and an acceptable specificity (63-75%). CONCLUSIONS: In plasma samples obtained during menstruation, multivariate analysis of four biomarkers (annexin V, VEGF, CA-125 and sICAM-1/or glycodelin) enabled the diagnosis of endometriosis undetectable by US with a sensitivity of 81-90% and a specificity of 63-81% in independent training- and test data set. The next step is to apply these models for preoperative prediction of endometriosis in an independent set of patients with infertility and/or pain without US evidence of endometriosis, scheduled for laparoscopy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/des234

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Proinflammatory cytokines may not be suitable candidates for a noninvasive biomarker for endometriosis, unless proper control subjects can be established.

    “This inappropriate selection of control led to their inability to discriminate endometriosis patients from others with nonendometriosisrelated pelvic inflammation and pain (115), effectively demonstrating that proinflammatory cytokines may not be suitable candidates for a noninvasive biomarker for endometriosis, unless proper control subjects can be established.”

    From Biomarkers in endometriosis: Challenges and opportunities (2017) · cites this paper as [115]

  • In Vodolazkaia et al.'s training data set, increased levels of proinflammatory markers including TNF-a, IL-6, and IL-1b were found in the control group rather than the endometriosis group.

    “Interestingly, though, they found increased levels of proinflammatory markers, including TNF-a, IL-6, and IL-1b, in the control group rather than the endometriosis group in the training data set, remarking on the possibility of nonendometriotic pelvic pathology contributing to the increase in the control group of women.”

    From Biomarkers in endometriosis: Challenges and opportunities (2017) · cites this paper as [115]

  • Inappropriate selection of control led to the inability to discriminate endometriosis patients from others with nonendometriosis-related pelvic inflammation and pain.

    “This inappropriate selection of control led to their inability to discriminate endometriosis patients from others with nonendometriosisrelated pelvic inflammation and pain (115), effectively demonstrating that proinflammatory cytokines may not be suitable candidates for a noninvasive biomarker for endometriosis, unless proper control subjects can be established.”

    From Biomarkers in endometriosis: Challenges and opportunities (2017) · cites this paper as [115]

  • Since May et al., 2010, research in endometriosis biomarkers has accomplished successful validation of biomarkers in an independent sample dataset, but still no test for endometriosis is commercially available.

    “Since the extensive review of May et al., 2010, research in endometriosis biomarkers has accomplished the successful validation of biomarkers in an independent sample dataset [24], but still no test for endometriosis is commercially available.”

    From Update on biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis (2015) · cites this paper as [24]

  • No consensus exists on whether cytokines are suitable to discriminate endometriosis patients from patients with other pelvic pathology.

    “However, no consensus exists on whether cytokines are suitable to discriminate endometriosis patients from patients with other pelvic pathology [24].”

    From Update on biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis (2015) · cites this paper as [24]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vodolazkaia, A., El-Aalamat, Y., Popovic, D., Mihalyi, A., Bossuyt, X., Kyama, C. M., Fassbender, A., Bokor, A., Schols, D., Huskens, D., Meuleman, C., Peeraer, K., Tomassetti, C., Gevaert, O., Waelkens, E., Kasran, A., De Moor, B., & D'Hooghe, T. M.
Affiliations
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (KE)
  • Semmelweis University (HU)
  • Rega Institute for Medical Research (BE)
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2012-06-26
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
2698-2711
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2130807780
Cited by
189
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 3
FWCI
20.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, non-invasive diagnosis, plasma biomarkers, biomarker panel, annexin V, vascular endothelial growth factor, CA125, sICAM-1, glycodelin, menstrual cycle phases, sensitivity and specificity, least squares support vector machine, inflammatory markers, delayed diagnosis, laparoscopic surgery
MeSH terms
Adult, Edetic Acid, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Inflammation, Menstrual Cycle, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Regression Analysis, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Models, Statistical, Biomarkers, Least-Squares Analysis, Case-Control Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review