Multicenter evaluation of blood-based biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis and adenomyosis: A prospective non-interventional study

Burghaus S, Stefanie Burghaus, Predrag Drazic, Drazic P, Monika Wölfler, Wölfler M, Sylvia Mechsner, Magdalena Zeppernick, Zeppernick M, Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein, Meinhold-Heerlein I, Ivo Meinhold‐Heerlein, Mueller MD, Michael D. Mueller, Rothmund R, Ralf Rothmund, Paola Viganò, Vigano P, Paola Vigano, Christian M. Becker, Becker CM, Krina T. Zondervan, Matthias W. Beckmann, Beckmann MW, Fasching PA, Peter A. Fasching, Sibylle Berner-Gatz, Berner-Gatz S, Sibylle Berner‐Gatz, Felix S. Grünewald, Martin Hund, Hund M, Peter Kastner, Kastner P, Martin Klammer, Klammer M, Laubender RP, Ruediger P. Laubender, Heike Wegmeyer, Ursula-Henrike Wienhues-Thelen, Ursula‐Henrike Wienhues‐Thelen, Wienhues-Thelen UH, Renner SP, Stefan P. Renner
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2023 · vol. 164(1) , pp. 305–314 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.15062 · PMID:37635683 · W4386209162
Diagnostic accuracy OA: hybrid CC0 ⤵ 13 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study evaluated 54 blood-based biomarkers for detecting endometriosis and adenomyosis and found that CA-125, S100-A12, and sFRP-4 showed some diagnostic accuracy but not with high certainty.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate blood-based biomarkers to detect endometriosis and/or adenomyosis across nine European centers (June 2014-April 2018). METHODS: This prospective, non-interventional study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of 54 blood-based biomarker immunoassays in samples from 919 women (aged 18-45 years) with suspicion of endometriosis and/or adenomyosis versus symptomatic controls. Endometriosis was stratified by revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine stage. Symptomatic controls were "pathologic symptomatic controls" or "pathology-free symptomatic controls". The main outcome measure was receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve (ROC-AUC) and Wilcoxon P values corrected for multiple testing (q values). RESULTS: CA-125 performed best in "all endometriosis cases" versus "all symptomatic controls" (AUC 0.645, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.600-0.690, q < 0.001) and increased (P < 0.001) with disease stage. In "all endometriosis cases" versus "pathology-free symptomatic controls", S100-A12 performed best (AUC 0.692, 95% CI 0.614-0.769, q = 0.001) followed by CA-125 (AUC 0.649, 95% CI 0.569-0.729, q = 0.021). In "adenomyosis only cases" versus "symptomatic controls" or "pathology-free symptomatic controls", respectively, the top-performing biomarkers were sFRP-4 (AUC 0.615, 95% CI 0.551-0.678, q = 0.045) and S100-A12 (AUC 0.701, 95% CI 0.611-0.792, q = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study concluded that no biomarkers tested could diagnose or rule out endometriosis/adenomyosis with high certainty.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisadenomyosis

MeSH descriptors

Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (45)

Cited by (16)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-13T06:10:10.580696+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-13T06:09:14.518867+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK