Cited by 102Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

Can chemokines be used as biomarkers for endometriosis? A systematic review

Borrelli, G. M., Abrao, M. S., Mechsner, S.·2014·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use chemokines as biomarkers to diagnose patients with endometriosis in clinical practice? SUMMARY ANSWER: Some chemokines, especially CXCL8 (IL-8), CCL-2 (MCP-1) and CCL5 (RANTES), have the potential to work as biomarkers to identify patients with endometriosis but their accuracy could be improved by combination with other non-inflammatory markers in a panel of biomarkers. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: The need for a good marker to diagnose endometriosis has increased in recent years and research in this field has intensified. Chemokines have been reported to be associated with endometriosis in several studies over the last 20 years. Many of these studies measured one or more chemokines in peritoneal fluid (PF) and peripheral blood (PB) or through endometrial biopsies in patients with and without endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review was done on all published studies that compared chemokine concentrations in patients with and without endometriosis to evaluate their potential as biomarkers for the disease. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Using MEDLINE database from December 1993 to August 2013 and the MeSH terms 'Endometriosis' and 'Chemokines', we identified relevant studies to include in the present review, which was based on the PRISMA statement. Studies that measured at least one chemokine in patients with endometriosis and matching controls in PB, PF or endometrial samples were included. We did not include samples from ectopic lesions. All review articles as well as studies with animals and those not written in English were excluded from this systematic review. The studies were assessed using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After inclusion and exclusion criteria, 62 studies were selected to be included in this systematic review. A total of 27 different chemokines or their receptors were evaluated in the reviewed studies. The most studied chemokines (including their receptors) were CXCL8 (51.6%), CCL2 (38.7%) and CCL5 (19.3%) (% of studies). CXCL8 (IL-8) appears to have the best results among all the other chemokines as a marker for endometriosis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some studies included have low power due to small sample size and study designs vary in the assessment criteria for the markers, the state of the patients (e.g. phase of the cycle and stage of disease) and the nature of the controls. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings could guide future research in this field to select the chemokines with the best potential, and to stimulate better-designed studies to determine whether they can become a useful diagnostic tool in clinical practice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding to support this systematic review. The authors have no competing interest to declare.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/det401

Cites

90 of 90 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?

  • In peripheral blood, IL-8, MCP-1, and RANTES showed potential as biomarkers, being significantly increased in endometriosis cases versus controls in 46.1%, 50%, and 75% of assessed studies, respectively.

    “In peripheral blood, IL-8, MCP-1, and RANTES showed potential as a biomarker, being significantly increased in endometriosis cases versus controls in, respectively, 46.1%, 50%, and 75% of the assessed studies [54].”

    From Update on biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis (2015) · cites this paper as [54]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borrelli, G. M., Abrao, M. S., & Mechsner, S.
Affiliations
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Borrelli, G. M.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2013-11-27
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
253-266
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2169573141
Cited by
102
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, chemokines, biomarkers, diagnostic accuracy, interleukin-8, CCL2/MCP-1, CCL5/RANTES, peritoneal fluid, peripheral blood, endometrial biopsy, chemokine receptors, biomarker panel, inflammation, risk of bias, risk of bias assessment
MeSH terms
Ascitic Fluid, Endometriosis, Endometrium, Female, Humans, Inflammation, Biomarkers, Interleukin-8, Chemokines, Chemokine CCL2, Chemokine CCL5

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