Endometriosis – novel approaches and controversies debated

W G Foster and M Leonardi Endometriosis C39–C41 2:4 COMMENTARY Endometriosis – novel approaches and controversies debated W G Foster and M Leonardi Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Correspondence should be addressed to W G Foster: [email protected] This paper forms part of a special series on Endometriosis. The guest editors for this section were Dr Mathew Leonardi (McMaster University, Canada) and Dr Warren (Lauren) Foster (McMaster University, Canada). Reproduction and Fertility (2021) 2 C39–C41 Defined by the extrauterine growth of estrogen- dependent endometrial-like epithelial and stromal cells, endometriosis is a common gynecological and systemic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 179 million people assigned female at birth (predominately cisgender women) worldwide. Although most frequently detected in the pelvic cavity, endometriotic lesions can be found throughout the body. Three main phenotypes include endometriomas, superficial, and deep endometriosis. Lesion appearance is variable and dependent on the tissue on which it grows. Hallmark features of endometriosis include pelvic pain and infertility; however, some people with endometriosis remain asymptomatic. Endometriosis is a disease whose impact on the health care system exceeds that of caring for women with Crohn’s disease, asthma, migraines, and rheumatoid arthritis ( Simoens  et  al. 2007, 2 011, 2012, Klein et al. 2014). Although a relatively common disease with a high economic burden, endometriosis remains underfunded and under-researched (As-Sanie et al. 2019). While important advances have been made over the years in defining the pathophysiology of endometriosis, the cause of endometriosis remains ill-defined, diagnosis continues to present challenges and therapeutic options are suboptimal. Patients frequently report dissatisfaction with current therapeutic options prompting the search for alternative treatments including non-hormonal alternatives. In a special series that will be running in Reproduction and Fertility over the coming months, international experts have been recruited to provide insights and perspectives into the latest advances in endometriosis research and treatment. We strive to succeed with this special series in summarizing the current state of ‘leading edge’ research and opinion in endometriosis. Though not exhaustive, the topics and authors capture this moment in time in endometriosis research. Although widely recognized to be an estrogen- dependent disease, numerous physiological pathways are known to be dysregulated in people with endometriosis including cell adherence, attachment, proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and tissue remodeling enzyme expression ( Hey-Cunningham  et  al. 2013 ). That endometriosis may have a heritable component is not a new concept ( Saha  et  al. 2015); however, specific gene mutations and gene regulation continue to be explored. Indeed, the mechanisms regulating different pathways dysregulated in endometriotic tissues are beginning to be teased apart with increasing attention focused on mechanisms regulating gene expression including chromatin architecture, long ncRNA, micro-RNA, and piwi-RNA. The role of gonadal steroids in modulating the expression of epigenetic regulators of gene expression in endometriosis is poorly understood. Early in this special series, the relationship between gonadal steroids and genomic regulation is reviewed by Dr Philippa Saunders. Given the prominent role of estrogen and the use of androgens as a therapeutic option in endometriosis suggests that hormone replacement therapy is a potential modifying factor in the transgender population that is beginning to receive attention. The prevalence of endometriosis and its implication in transgender men is summarized by Dr Cecile Ferrando in her review of this underserved population. The reproductive and gastrointestinal tract microbiome has been described by several investigators and dysbiosis has -21-0097ID: XX-XXXX; 2 4 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://raf.bioscientifica.com © 2021 The authors  PublishedbyBioscientificaLtdhttps://doi.org/10.1530/RAF-21-0097 Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 06/07/2026 01:14:03PM via Open Access. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ W G Foster and M Leonardi Endometriosis C402:4 https://raf.bioscientifica.com © 2021 The authors  PublishedbyBioscientificaLtd been linked with endometriosis (Franasiak  et  al. 2016, Laschke & Menger 2016, Hernandes et al. 2020, Leonardi et al. 2020a). In addition, the role of the microbiome in disease, cancer, and modulating behavior has received increasing attention. Dr Mauricio Abrão reviews recent advances in the microbiome and its potential role in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. Dysregulation of the immune function and inflammation are well known in patients with endometriosis. Moreover, chronic inflammatory conditions are linked with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke ( Appelman  et  al. 2015) prompting interest in health sequelae arising from endometriosis (Mu  et  al. 2016). Elucidating the long-term health consequences of endometriosis will be discussed by Dr Stacey Missmer in her review. Arriving at a diagnosis of endometriosis continues to challenge both patients and health care providers. Challenges in arriving at a diagnosis of endometriosis include early age at onset of symptoms, normalization of pain, and symptom suppression through intermittent use of oral contraceptive pills (Ballard et al. 2006, Nnoaham et al. 2 011). Though actively being challenged, the gold standard for diagnosis remains laparoscopic visualization and histological confirmation of endometriotic implants, with diagnostic delays of 5.3–12 years from the onset of the first symptom to surgical diagnosis ( Simoens  et  al. 2007, 2012, Singh  et  al. 2020 ). Although risks to patients from laparoscopy are rare, they are significant if they occur ( Slack  et  al. 2007) and patients with endometriosis can expect to undergo multiple diagnostic and operative laparoscopies over the course of their disease ( Jarrell 2010, Agarwal  et  al. 2021). Diagnostic delay, cost, surgical risk, and poor correlation between symptoms and extent of disease are the basis for arguments to shift away from a surgical diagnosis ( Taylor et al. 2018, Agarwal et al. 2019). Ideally, a diagnosis can be achieved in an accurate and reliable manner, with non-invasive imaging providing the most optimistic method to visualize disease directly. Recent advances in ultrasound and MRI techniques have brought the diagnosis of endometriomas and deep endometriosis into the realm of possibility. In this special series, Dr Stephano Guerriero will be providing an overview of recent advances and emerging techniques. However, diagnosis remains elusive to many currently and imaging may not be a panacea. Thus, there is an urgent unmet need to identify novel clinical markers of endometriosis ( Nisenblat  et  al. 2016, Rogers et al. 2017, Agarwal et al. 2019). Those with endometriosis report dissatisfaction with their care, and treatment options remain suboptimal. Historically, endometriosis has been treated in acute care or surgical model; however, persistent pelvic pain and recurrence of disease and/or pain following surgical removal of lesions brings attention to the need to readdress the current approach to care. Specifically, Dr Sanjay Agarwal introduces the concept of a chronic care model for the management of people with endometriosis. Alongside the changing model of care, there is an obvious need for novel medical treatments, especially in the non-hormonal category, which is being reviewed by Dr Hiroshi Kobayashi in this issue. Alternatives to current medical and surgical treatment options are also receiving attention (Leonardi  et  al. 2020b). Environmental factors and diet are well-established modifiers of health and disease; however, the role of diet as a therapeutic option in endometriosis is emerging as a potential option worthy of consideration. In this series, Dr Annemiek Nap will be discussing the role of diet in endometriosis as a novel approach to managing endometriosis symptoms. Environmental conditions and diet also differ across racial groups. The impact of race on disease extends beyond diet; understanding the prevalence of endometriosis among racial groups and diagnostic and treatment considerations is an issue explored by Dr Olga Bougie. Finally, we will be concluding this special series with a debate presenting opposing viewpoints on the future of diagnostic laparoscopy as a diagnostic test . Arguments in favor of diagnostic laparoscopy will be presented by Dr George Condous and the contrary arguments presented by Dr Kelly Wright. The role of diagnostic laparoscopy as a stand-alone diagnostic test for endometriosis has become controversial in recent years, often being used at the same time as operative laparoscopy for the surgical treatment of endometriosis. While many advocate for a reduction in the number of laparoscopies in favor of a clinical diagnosis and presumptive management of disease, others maintain that laparoscopy is a valuable tool that should remain prominent in the diagnosis of people with endometriosis. Declaration of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of this commentary. Funding Thisworkdidnotreceiveanyspecificgrantfromanyfundingagencyinthe public,commercialornot-for-profitsector. Author contribution statement Both authors jointly conceived of the concepts for this manuscript, contributedequallytothewrittendocument,andjointlyapprovedthefinal manuscript for submission. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1530/RAF-21-0097 Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 06/07/2026 01:14:03PM via Open Access. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ W G Foster and M Leonardi Endometriosis C412:4 References Agarwal SK, Chapron C, Giudice LC, Laufer MR, Leyland N, Missmer SA, Singh SS & T aylor HS 2019 Clinical diagnosis of endometriosis: a call to action. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 220 354.e1–354.e12. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ajog.2018.12.039) Agarwal SK, Antunez-Flores O, Foster WG, Hermes A, Golshan S, Soliman AM, Arnold A & Luna R 2021 Real-world characteristics of women with endometriosis-related pain entering a multidisciplinary endometriosis program. BMC Women’s Health 21 19. (https://doi.org/10.1 186/s12905-020-01 139-7) Appelman Y, van Rijn BB, T en Haaf ME, Boersma E & Peters SA 2015 Sex differences in cardiovascular risk factors and disease prevention. Atherosclerosis 241 21 1–218. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j. atherosclerosis.2015.01.027) As-Sanie S, Black R, Giudice LC, Gray V albrun T, Gupta J, Jones B, Laufer MR, Milspaw AT, Missmer SA, Norman A, et al. 2019 Assessing research gaps and unmet needs in endometriosis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 221 86–94. (https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.033) Ballard K, Lowton K & Wright J 2006 What’s the delay? A qualitative study of women’s experiences of reaching a diagnosis of endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility 86 1296–1301. (https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.04.054) Franasiak JM, Werner MD, Juneau CR, T ao X, Landis J, Zhan Y, Treff NR & Scott RT 2016 Endometrial microbiome at the time of embryo transfer: next-generation sequencing of the 16s ribosomal subunit. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 33 129–136. (https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10815-015-0614-z) Hernandes C, Silveira P , Rodrigues Sereia AF, Christoff AP , Mendes H, V alter de Oliveira LF & Podgaec S 2020 Microbiome profile of deep endometriosis patients: comparison of vaginal fluid, endometrium and lesion. Diagnostics 10 163. (https://doi.org/10.3390/ diagnostics10030163) Hey-Cunningham AJ, Peters KM, Zevallos HB, Berbic M, Markham R & Fraser IS 2013 Angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis and neurogenesis in endometriosis. Frontiers in Bioscience 5 1033–1056. (https://doi.org/10.2741/e682) Jarrell J 2010 Annual repeat rates of laparoscopic surgery: a marker of practice variation. American Journal of Medical Quality 25 378–383. (https://doi.org/10.1 177 /1062860610366588) Klein S, D’Hooghe T, Meuleman C, Dirksen C, Dunselman G & Simoens S 2014 What is the societal burden of endometriosis-associated symptoms? A prospective Belgian study. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 28 1 16–124. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.09.020) Laschke MW & Menger MD 2016 The gut microbiota: a puppet master in the pathogenesis of endometriosis? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 215 68.e1–68.e4. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ajog.2016.02.036) Leonardi M, Hicks C, El-Assaad F, El-Omar E & Condous G 2020a Endometriosis and the microbiome: a systematic review. BJOG 127 239–249. (https://doi.org/10.1 1 1 1/1471-0528.15916) Leonardi M, Horne A W, Vincent K, Sinclair J, Sherman KA, Ciccia D, Condous G, Johnson NP & Armour M 2020b Self- management strategies to consider to combat endometriosis symptoms during the covid-19 pandemic. Human Reproduction Open 2020 hoaa028. (https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa028) Mu F, Rich-Edwards J, Rimm EB, Spiegelman D & Missmer SA 2016 Endometriosis and risk of coronary heart disease. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 9 257–264. (https://doi. org/10.1 161/CIRCOUTCOMES.1 15.002224) Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PM, Shaikh R, Farquhar C, Jordan V, Scheffers CS, Mol BW, Johnson N & Hull ML 2016 Blood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 5 CD012179. (https://doi. org/10.1002/14651858.CD012179) Nnoaham KE, Hummelshoj L, Webster P , d’Hooghe T, de Cicco Nardone F, de Cicco Nardone C, Jenkinson C, Kennedy SH, Zondervan KT & World Endometriosis Research Foundation Global Study of Women’s Health consortium 201 1 Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries. Fertility and Sterility 96 366.e8–373.e8. (https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.201 1.05.090) Rogers PA, Adamson GD, Al-Jefout M, Becker CM, D’Hooghe TM, Dunselman GA, Fazleabas A, Giudice LC, Horne A W, Hull ML, et al. 2017 Research priorities for endometriosis. Reproductive Sciences 24 202–226. (https://doi.org/10.1 177 /19337191 16654991) Saha R, Pettersson HJ, Svedberg P , Olovsson M, Bergqvist A, Marions L, T ornvall P & Kuja-Halkola R 2015 Heritability of endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility 104 947–952. (https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.035) Simoens S, Hummelshoj L & D’Hooghe T 2007 Endometriosis: cost estimates and methodological perspective. Human Reproduction Update 13 395–404. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmm010) Simoens S, Hummelshoj L, Dunselman G, Brandes I, Dirksen C, D’Hooghe T & EndoCost Consortium 201 1 Endometriosis cost assessment (the endocost study): a cost-of-illness study protocol. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 71 170–176. (https://doi. org/10.1 159/000316055) Simoens S, Dunselman G, Dirksen C, Hummelshoj L, Bokor A, Brandes I, Brodszky V, Canis M, Colombo GL, DeLeire T, et al. 2012 The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Human Reproduction 27 1292–1299. (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des073) Singh S, Soliman AM, Rahal Y, Robert C, Defoy I, Nisbet P & Leyland N 2020 Prevalence, symptomatic burden, and diagnosis of endometriosis in canada: cross-sectional survey of 30 000 women. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 42 829–838. (https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jogc.2019.10.038) Slack A, Child T, Lindsey I, Kennedy S, Cunningham C, Mortensen N, Koninckx P & McV eigh E 2007 Urological and colorectal complications following surgery for rectovaginal endometriosis. BJOG 114 1278–1282. (https://doi.org/10.1 1 1 1/j.1471- 0528.2007.01477.x) T aylor HS, Adamson GD, Diamond MP , Goldstein SR, Horne A W, Missmer SA, Snabes MC, Surrey E & T aylor RN 2018 An evidence-based approach to assessing surgical versus clinical diagnosis of symptomatic endometriosis. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 142 131–142. (https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12521) Received in final form 29 October 2021 Accepted 5 November 2021 Accepted Manuscript published online 5 November 2021 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1530/RAF-21-0097 https://raf.bioscientifica.com © 2021 The authors  PublishedbyBioscientificaLtd Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 06/07/2026 01:14:03PM via Open Access. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/