{"paper_id":"d37ce226-8d05-4386-9e68-d6ee51ca4021","body_text":"Abstract\nEndometriosis, characterized by the presence of endometrial-like tissue at extrauterine sites, is a common, chronic, estrogen-dependent, inflammatory condition associated with pelvic pain, subfertility, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia, affecting about 10% of reproductive-age women in any population. The diagnosis of endometriosis is usually delayed on an average by 8 to 11 years leading to significant consequences in terms of disease progression. The current study was aimed to validate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay based on the epitopes of stomatin-like protein 2, tropomodulin 3 (TMOD3), and tropomyosin 3 (TPM3) for diagnosis of minimal-mild endometriosis (revised American Fertility Society Classification (rAFS) stage I-II) and to compare the performance with the reported markers: cancer antigen (CA) 125, CA19-9, α-enolase, Serine/threonine-protein kinase (PDIK1L), and syntaxin 5. This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study conducted during the year 2012 to 2015. Women with minimal-mild endometriosis (rAFS stage I-II [n = 133]) and healthy controls (n = 104) were screened for 11 novel autoimmune markers and reported markers α-enolase, PDIK1L, syntaxin 5, CA-125, and CA19-9. The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of serum antibodies against all the 11 epitopes were higher than that of CA-125, CA19-9, α-enolase, PDIK1L, and syntaxin 5 for diagnosis of rAFS stage I to II endometriosis. The sensitivity of 6 biomarkers (anti-TMOD3b-autoAb, anti-TMOD3c-autoAb, anti-TMOD3d-autoAb, anti-TPM3a-autoAb, anti-TPM3c-autoAb, and anti-TPM3d-autoAb) was higher at the specificity of ≥80% for diagnosis of rAFS stage I to II endometriosis as well as ultrasound-negative endometriosis. Further, logistic regression models of this panel of biomarkers showed increase in sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy than individual biomarkers. The panel of 6 autoimmune biomarkers could be useful in setting up of noninvasive diagnostic test for detection of minimal-mild endometriosis.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nGiudice LC, Kao LC. Endometriosis. Lancet. 2004;364(9447):1789–1799.\nGajbhiye R, Khole V. Endometriosis research in India: current scenario and challenges for future. Endo Insight Newsletter. 2013;2:4–8\nLeng JH, Lang JH, Dai Y, Li HJ, Li XY. Relationship between pain symptoms and clinico-pathological features of pelvic endometriosis. Zhonghua Fu Chan KeZaZhi. 2007;42(3):165–168.\nBulletti C, Coccia M E, Battistoni S, Borini A. Endometriosis and infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27(8):441–447.\nBendigeri T, Warty N, Sawant R, et al. Endometriosis: clinical experience of 500 patients from India. Indian Pract. 2015;68(7):34–40.\nSimoens S, Dunselman G, Dirksen C, et al. The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1292–1299.\nKlein S, D’Hooghe T, Meulemanb C, Dirksenc C, Dunselmand G, Simoensa S. What is the societal burden of endometriosis-associated symptoms? A prospective Belgian study. Reprod BioMed. 2014;28(1):116–124.\nWinkel C. Evaluation and management of women with endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(2):397–408.\nKennedy S, Bergqvist A, Chapron C, et al. ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(10):2698–2704.\nHadfield R, Mardon H, Barlow D, Kennedy S. Delay in the diagnosis of endometriosis: a survey of women from the USA and the UK. Hum Reprod 1996;11:878–880.\nD’Hooghe TM, Mihalyi AM, Simsa P, et al. Why we need a non-invasive diagnostic test for minimal to mild endometriosis with a high sensitivity. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;62(3):136–138.\nHusby G, Haugen R, Moen M. Diagnostic delay in women with pain and endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(7):649–653.\nBallard K, Lowton K, Wright J. What’s the delay? A qualitative study of women’s experiences of reaching a diagnosis of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5):1296–1301.\nNnoaham K, Hummelshoj L, Webster P, et al.; World Endometriosis Research Foundation Global Study of Women’s Health consortium. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):366–373.\nRogers P, D’Hooghe T, Fazleabas A, et al. Defining future direction for endometriosis research: workshop report from 2011 world congress of endometriosis in Montpellier. Reprod Sci. 2013;20(5):483–499.\nVodolazkaia A, El-Aalamat Y, Popovic D, et al. Evaluation of a panel of 28 biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2698–2711.\nNabeta M, Abe Y, Kagawa L, et al. Identification of anti-a-enolase autoantibody as a novel serum marker for endometriosis. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2009;3(10):1201–1210.\nNabeta M, Abe Y, Haraguchi R., Kito K, Kusanagi Y, Ito M. Serum anti-PDIK1L autoantibody as a novel marker for endometriosis. Fert Steril. 2010;94(7):2552–2557.\nNabeta M, Abe Y, Takaokaa Y, Kusanagi Y, Ito M. Identification of anti-syntaxin 5 autoantibody as a novel serum marker of endometriosis. J Reprod Immunol. 2011;91(1-2):48–55.\nFassbender A, Vodolazkaia A, Saunders P, et al. Biomarkers of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):1135–1145.\nFassbender A, Burney R, Dorien F. O, D’Hooghe T, Giudice L. Update on biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:130854.\nGajbhiye R, Suryawanshi A, Khan S, et al. Multiple endometrial antigens are targeted in autoimmune endometriosis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;16(6):817–824.\nGajbhiye R, Sonawani A, Khan S, et al. Identification and validation of novel serum markers for early diagnosis of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(2):408–417.\nAmerican Society for Reproductive Medicine. Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine Classification of endometriosis: 1996. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(5):817–821.\nBossuyt X., Clinical performance characteristics of a laboratory test. Apractical approach in autoimmune laboratory. Autoimmune Rev. 2009;8(7):543–548.\nDarah AC, Caitlin DL, Chau LA, et al. Stomatin-like protein binds cardiolipin and regulates mitochondrial biogenesis and function. Mol Cell Biol. 2011;31(18):3845–3856.\nZhang L, Ding F, Cao W, et al. Stomatin-like protein 2 is overexpressed in cancer and involved in regulating cell growth and cell adhesion in human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(5):1639–1646.\nCui Z, Zhang L, Hua Z, Cao W, Feng W, Liu Z. Stomatin-like protein 2 is over expressed and related to cell growth in human endometrial adenocarcinoma. Oncol Re. 2007;17(4):829–833.\nKirchhof M, Chau L, Lemke C, et al. Modulation of T cell activation by stomatin-like protein 2. J Immunol. 2008;181(3):1927–2704.\nFischer RS, Fritz-Six KL, Fowler VM., Pointed-end capping by tropomodulin3 negatively regulates endothelial cell motility. J Cell Biol. 2003;161(2):371–380.\nWelch S, Plank D, Witt S, et al. Cardiac-specific IGF-1 expression attenuates dilated cardiomyopathy in tropomodulin-overexpressing. Transgenic Mice Circ Res. 2002;90(6):641–648.\nDas KM, Bajpai M. Tropomyosins in human diseases: ulcerative colitis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008;644:158–167.\nO’Neill GM, Stehn J, Gunning PW. Tropomyosins as interpreters of the signalling environment to regulate the local cytoskeleton. Semin Cancer Biol. 2008;18(1):35–44.\nMay KE, Conduit-Hulbert SA, Villar J, Kirtley S, Kennedy SH, Becker CM. Peripheral biomarkers of endometriosis: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(6):651–674.\nMihalyi A, Gevaert O, Kyama C M, et al. Non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis based on a combined analysis of six plasma biomarkers. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):654–664.\nThubert T, Santulli P, Marcellin L, et al. Measurement of hs-CRP is irrelevant to diagnose and stage endometriosis: prospective study of 834 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(6):533.e1-533.e10.\nKurdoglu Z, Gursoy R, Kurdoglu M, Erdem M, Erdem O, Erdem A. Comparison of the clinical value of CA19-9 versus CA 125 for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1761–1763.\nAbrão MS, Podgaec S, Pinotti JA, de Oliveira RM. Tumor markers in endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999;66(1):19–22.\nHarada T, Kubota T, Aso T. Usefulness of CA19-9 versus CA125 for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(4):733–739.\nSomigliana E, Vigano P, Tirelli AS, et al. Use of the concomitant serum dosage of CA 125, CA 19-9 and interleukin-6 to detect the presence of endometriosis. Results from a series of reproductive age women undergoing laparoscopic surgery for benign gynaecological conditions. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(8):1871–1876.\nBilibio JP, Souza CA, Rodini GP, et al. Serum prolactin and CA-125 levels as biomarkers of peritoneal endometriosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014;78(1):45–52.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nGajbhiye, R., Bendigeri, T., Ghuge, A. et al. Panel of Autoimmune Markers for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Minimal-Mild Endometriosis: A Multicenter Study. Reprod. Sci. 24, 413–420 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719116657190\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719116657190","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}