Cited by 195Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementGynecological conditions and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 148 of the 149 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 198 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis

Open access
Fassbender, Amelie, Burney, Richard O., F. O, Dorien, D’Hooghe, Thomas, Giudice, Linda·2015·BioMed Research International

Abstract

Endometriosis is histologically characterized by the displacement of endometrial tissue to extrauterine locations including the pelvic peritoneum, ovaries, and bowel. An important cause of infertility and pelvic pain, the individual and global socioeconomic burden of endometriosis is significant. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of the condition. However, the invasive nature of surgery, coupled with the lack of a laboratory biomarker for the disease, results in a mean latency of 7–11 years from onset of symptoms to definitive diagnosis. Unfortunately, the delay in diagnosis may have significant consequences in terms of disease progression. The discovery of a sufficiently sensitive and specific biomarker for the nonsurgical detection of endometriosis promises earlier diagnosis and prevention of deleterious sequelae and represents a clear research priority. In this review, we describe and discuss the current status of biomarkers of endometriosis in plasma, urine, and endometrium.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This narrative review concludes that no single biomarker or panel has been validated for noninvasive detection of endometriosis, and laparoscopy remains the diagnostic gold standard. It surveys blood, urine, and endometrial candidates, highlighting promising but largely unvalidated panels and the need for Phase II/III validation.

Key findings

  • Laparoscopy remains the gold standard, contributing to a mean latency of 7–11 years from symptom onset to definitive diagnosis; no blood biomarker or panel has been validated for clinical use.
  • CA-125 meta-analysis showed 50% sensitivity and 72% specificity for stage I–IV endometriosis, and 60% sensitivity with 80% specificity for stage III–IV disease; CA-125 is not specific because it is also elevated in ovarian cancer.
  • Several candidate panels report high accuracy but remain unvalidated, e.g. CA-125 + CA-19-9 + survivin mRNA had 87% sensitivity and a 10% false-positive rate; CA-125 + CCR1 mRNA + MCP-1 had 92.2% sensitivity and 81.6% specificity; a 4-marker panel (CA-125, VEGF, Annexin V, glycodelin/sICAM-1) showed 74–94% sensitivity and 55–75% specificity after initial validation.
  • Endometrial nerve fiber detection by PGP9.5 showed 98% sensitivity and 83% specificity in a double-blind pipelle study, but a clinical laboratory adoption detected nerve fibers in 9/45 (22%) histologically confirmed endometriosis cases and 6/21 (29%) women without endometriosis, raising specificity concerns.

Methods

  • Narrative review of the current status of endometriosis biomarkers in plasma, urine, and endometrium, framed by the four phases of biomarker development (Phase I preclinical discovery through Phase IV commercialization).
  • Synthesizes published studies and reported diagnostic performance metrics; no new primary data, systematic search strategy, or meta-analysis is described.
  • Main analysis is qualitative synthesis of candidate biomarkers, including glycoproteins, cytokines, oxidative stress markers, cell adhesion/invasion factors, angiogenesis markers, hormones, autoantibodies, miRNAs, proteomics, metabolomics, cell-free DNA, cell populations, urine markers, and endometrial markers.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: most endometriosis biomarker studies remain at Phase I, only a few reach Phase II, and Phase III/IV has not been reached; no noninvasive test is commercially available or validated.
  • Stated in the paper: common limitations include small sample size, suboptimal specimen characterization (e.g., no breakdown by menstrual phase or lesion phenotype), inconsistent sample handling/storage, and lack of reproducibility; proteomic technologies are costly, time-consuming, and need better standardization.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not use a systematic search or formal quality appraisal, and it relies on heterogeneous studies with differing assays, sample types, cycle phases, and populations, which limits comparability of reported sensitivities and specificities.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2015/130854

Cites

148 of 148 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 198 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 117 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 43
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 8
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
49 of 49
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    MALDI-TOF does not allow direct identification of peptides or proteins that are differentially synthesized or secreted.

    “Importantly, MALDI-TOF does not allow direct identification of peptides or proteins that are differentially synthesized or secreted, which is fundamental to further validation and clinical assay development, although protein pattern recognition holds promise for the future.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    SELDI-TOF MS methodology provides differential proteomic profiles in the form of mass/charge (m/z) peaks without attendant characterization of the peptides or proteins.

    “Importantly, the SELDI-TOF MS methodology provides differential proteomic profiles in the form of mass/charge (m/z) peaks without attendant characterization of the peptides or proteins.”
2 of 2

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported panel accuracy does not match sensitivity, specificity, and group sizes

    Major

    With 60 patients and 20 controls, 90% sensitivity gives 54 correct patient classifications and 70% specificity gives 14 correct control classifications. Overall accuracy is therefore 68/80, or 85%, not 88.7%. The check repeats 90 three times to represent the 3:1 patient-to-control ratio.

    Reported 88.7 · recomputed 85

  • Nine of 45 cases is 20%, not 22%

    Minor

    The stated count gives 9/45 = 20%. The nearby figure of 6/21 = 29% is consistent with rounding.

    Reported 22 · recomputed 20

  • Two different sensitivities are given for glycodelin A

    Minor

    The sentence assigns two different sensitivity values to glycodelin A for the same stated diagnostic use, without distinguishing the measures.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 149 references

1 of the 149 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 1927, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 14, 442
  2. 2014, Biomarkers of endometriosis, 321
  3. 10.1093/humupd/dmq009 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 2008, Health economics of endometriosis, 1
  5. 2011, Minerva Ginecologica, 63, 195
  6. 2013, International Journal of Fertility and Sterility, 7, 96
  7. 2003, Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao, 23, 757
  8. 2008, Anticancer Research, 28, 119
  9. 2014, Biomarkers of endometriosis
  10. 2000, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 85, 3292

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fassbender, A., Burney, R. O., F. O, D., D’Hooghe, T., & Giudice, L.
Affiliations
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • Madigan Army Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
  • D’Hooghe, Thomas
  • Giudice, Linda
Venue
BioMed Research International
Published
2015
Volume
2015
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 1110-7243 (ISSN-L)
  • 2314-6133
  • 2314-6141
OpenAlex
W1935876281
Cited by
195
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 2
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BioMed Research International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD055764)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, biomarkers, early diagnosis, plasma biomarkers, urinary biomarkers, endometrium, infertility, pelvic pain, delayed diagnosis
MeSH terms
Endometriosis, Endometrium, Female, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Early Diagnosis

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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