Cited by 20Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementGynecological conditions and treatments

Cytokeratin-19 as a biomarker in urine and in serum for the diagnosis of endometriosis – a prospective study

Kuessel, Lorenz, Jaeger-Lansky, Agnes, Pateisky, Petra, Rossberg, Nora, Schulz, Anke, Schmitz, Arndt A. P., Staudigl, Christine, Wenzl, René·2014·Gynecological Endocrinology

Abstract

Endometriosis compromises the quality of life of countless women worldwide and is a leading cause of disability. Clinical symptoms of endometriosis can be very heterogeneous leading to a long interval between onset of symptoms and surgical diagnosis. A noninvasive, rapid diagnostic test is urgently needed. In this prospective study, we evaluated the usefulness of Cytokeratin-19 (CK19) as a biomarker for the diagnosis of endometriosis through urine and serum ELISA. 76 reproductive-aged women undergoing laparoscopy for benign conditions were included to this study and divided into two groups by the presence (n = 44) or absence (n = 32) of endometriosis. There was no statistically significant correlation between the concentration of CK19 in urine (p = 0.51) or in serum (p = 0.77) and the diagnosis of endometriosis. Assigning the samples to the proliferative or secretory cycle stage did not sufficiently lower the p values. In this study, the promising data reported in the recent literature about CK19 serving as a sufficient biomarker for endometriosis could not be verified when tested in a larger sample size. Further studies are warranted to explore the usefulness of CK19 in the diagnosis of endometriosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/09513590.2013.856409

Cites

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?

  • A larger prospective study was unable to confirm the diagnostic potential for urinary CK19.

    “A larger prospective study was subsequently unable to confirm the diagnostic potential for urinary CK19 [103], possibly due to different specimen collection techniques or different subject characteristics.”

    From Update on biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis (2015) · cites this paper as [103]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 20

Authors
Kuessel, L., Jaeger-Lansky, A., Pateisky, P., Rossberg, N., Schulz, A., Schmitz, A. A. P., Staudigl, C., & Wenzl, R.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Bayer (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Kuessel, Lorenz
Venue
Gynecological Endocrinology
Published
2013-11-12
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
38-41
ISSN
  • 0951-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0766
OpenAlex
W2089646129
Cited by
20
References
23
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gynecological Endocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bayer
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 › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, cytokeratin 19, CK19, biomarkers, non-invasive diagnosis, urinary biomarkers, serum biomarkers, ELISA, women of reproductive age
MeSH terms
Adult, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Menstrual Cycle, Peritoneal Diseases, Laparoscopy, Biomarkers, Case-Control Studies, Keratin-19

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