{"paper_id":"0dea5b5f-e913-4c58-82bd-6c5f0b751193","body_text":"What Constitutes a Diagnosis of Endometriosis? Rethinking the Hierarchy of Clinical, Imaging, Surgical, and Histopathological Evidence\nDOI:\nhttps://doi.org/10.63501/73tmpg67Abstract\nAbstract\nEndometriosis is a chronic gynecological disease associated with pelvic pain, infertility, and substantial impairment in quality of life. Despite its prevalence and clinical burden, diagnosis remains challenging because symptoms, lesion distribution, disease phenotype, imaging findings, laparoscopic appearance, and histopathology do not always correspond. Historically, laparoscopy, supported by histopathological confirmation, was regarded as the diagnostic gold standard. However, this paradigm has progressively changed with advances in high-quality transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), alongside recognition that surgical visualization and histopathology are themselves imperfect diagnostic references. Contemporary guidelines increasingly support non-invasive imaging within the diagnostic pathway and no longer require diagnostic laparoscopy for every patient with suspected endometriosis. Nevertheless, imaging remains strongly phenotype-dependent and is less sensitive for superficial peritoneal disease. This creates an unresolved diagnostic problem: when clinical, imaging, surgical, and histopathological evidence disagree, which source should determine whether a patient “has” endometriosis? This narrative review examines the diagnostic contribution and limitations of clinical assessment, TVUS, MRI, laparoscopy, and histopathology. We argue that the traditional concept of a single diagnostic gold standard is increasingly difficult to sustain. Instead, endometriosis diagnosis should be conceptualized as an integrated, phenotype-specific assessment of diagnostic probability, in which the weight assigned to each modality depends on its strengths, limitations, and clinical context. We propose a framework distinguishing clinical suspicion, presumptive clinicoradiological diagnosis, surgical diagnosis, and histologically supported diagnosis, while emphasizing that negative findings from any individual modality should not automatically exclude disease. This approach may better reflect contemporary evidence and support patient-centered diagnostic decision-making\n.\nReferences\nReferences\nBecker CM, Bokor A, Heikinheimo O, Horne A, Jansen F, Kiesel L, King K, Kvaskoff M, Nap A, Petersen K, Saridogan E. ESHRE guideline: endometriosis. Human reproduction open. 2022 Jan 1;2022(2):hoac009.\nAs-Sanie S, Mackenzie SC, Morrison L, Schrepf A, Zondervan KT, Horne AW, Missmer SA. Endometriosis: a review. Jama. 2025 Jul 1;334(1):64-78.\nDe Corte P, Klinghardt M, von Stockum S, Heinemann K. Time to diagnose endometriosis: current status, challenges and regional characteristics—a systematic literature review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2025 Jan;132(2):118-30.\nSingh SS, Allaire C, Al-Nourhji O, Bougie O, Bridge-Cook P, Duigenan S, Kroft J, Lemyre M, Leonardi M, Leyland N, Maheux-Lacroix S. Guideline No. 449: diagnosis and impact of endometriosis–a Canadian guideline. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2024 May 1;46(5):102450.\nGratton SM, Choudhry AJ, Vilos GA, Vilos A, Baier K, Holubeshen S, Medor MC, Mercier S, Nguyen V, Chen I. Diagnosis of endometriosis at laparoscopy: a validation study comparing surgeon visualization with histologic findings. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2022 Feb 1;44(2):135-41.\nKanti, F.S., Gorak Savard, R., Bergeron, F., Zomahoun, H.T.V., Netter, A. and Maheux-Lacroix, S., 2024. Transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of endometrioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 44(1), p.2311664.\nLeonardi M, Uzuner C, Mestdagh W, Lu C, Guerriero S, Zajicek M, Dueckelmann A, Filippi F, Buonomo F, Pascual MA, Stepniewska A. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for detection of endometriosis using International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) approach: prospective international pilot study. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2022 Sep;60(3):404-13.\nCondous G, Gerges B, Thomassin-Naggara I, Becker CM, Tomassetti C, Krentel H, van Herendael BJ, Malzoni M, Abrao MS, Saridogan E, Keckstein J. Non-invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement. Human reproduction open. 2024 Jan 1;2024(3):hoae029.\nThomassin-Naggara I, Dolciami M, Chamie LP, Guerra A, Bharwani N, Freeman S, Rousset P, Manganaro L. ESUR consensus MRI for endometriosis: protocol, lexicon, and compartment-based analysis. European Radiology. 2025 Nov;35(11):7272-86.\nBrulport A, Bourdon M, Vaiman D, Drouet C, Pocate-Cheriet K, Bouzid K, Marcellin L, Santulli P, Abo C, Jeljeli M, Chouzenoux S. An integrated multi-tissue approach for endometriosis candidate biomarkers: a systematic review. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 2024 Feb 10;22(1):21.\nGaia-Oltean AI, Boitor D, Pop LA, Galea G, Telecan T, Micu R. Non-Invasive Methods for Early Diagnosis of Endometriosis—A Comprehensive Narrative Literature Review. InHealthcare 2025 Dec 13 (Vol. 13, No. 24, p. 3276).\nMittal S, Tong A, Young S, Jha P. Artificial intelligence applications in endometriosis imaging. Abdominal Radiology. 2025 Oct;50(10):4901-13.\nShrestha P, Shrestha B, Sherestha J, Chen J. Current status and future potential of machine learning in diagnostic imaging of endometriosis: a literature review. JNMA: Journal of the Nepal Medical Association. 2025 Mar 31;63(283):205.\nAvery JC, Deslandes A, Freger SM, Leonardi M, Lo G, Carneiro G, Condous G, Hull ML, Hull L, Avery J, O’Hara R. Noninvasive diagnostic imaging for endometriosis part 1: a systematic review of recent developments in ultrasound, combination imaging, and artificial intelligence. Fertility and sterility. 2024 Feb 1;121(2):164-88.\nTian Z, Zhang YC, Sun XH, Wang Y, Zhao Y, Chang XH, Zhu HL. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in bladder and ureter: a meta-analysis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2022 Aug 18;42(6):2272-81.\nRoditis A, Florin M, Rousset P, Touboul C, Bendifallah S, Bazot M, Thomassin-Naggara I. Accuracy of combined physical examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging to diagnose deep endometriosis. Fertility and sterility. 2023 Apr 1;119(4):634-43.\nZhou Y, Su Y, Liu H, Wu H, Xu J, Dong F. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis in the uterosacral ligaments: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2021 Mar 1;50(3):101953.\nCosgriff L, Mukker A, Ford C, Tavcar J. Advances in non‐invasive diagnostic tools for endometriosis: A narrative review of the past ten years. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2026 Feb;172(2):786-94.\nDownloads\nPublished\nIssue\nSection\nLicense\nThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the source. To view a copy of this license, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}