An update on the biological markers of endometriosis

Socolov R, Razvan Socolov, Răzvan Socolov, Socolov D, Demetra Socolov, Allia Sindilar, Sindilar A, Ioana Păvăleanu, Ioana Pavaleanu
Minerva ginecologica · 2017 · vol. 69(5) , pp. 462–467 · doi:10.23736/s0026-4784.17.04046-1 · PMID:28271701 · W2727484633
Review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 18 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This literature review analyzed recent studies on biological markers for endometriosis, finding CA 125 useful for suspicion and follow-up, while other markers show promise for differential diagnosis and understanding pathogeny.

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

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Endometriosis is a disease that affects 7-10% of reproductive-age women. When its diagnosis is delayed, its management becomes more difficult. Both for earlier detection and for therapeutic follow-up, discovering noninvasive biological markers with good specificity for this disease is a promising aspect of its research. We analyzed the recent data in the literature regarding these markers to determine which were worth following. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This literature review focused on medical data reported in the last 6 years (2011-2016). After identifying articles in PubMed, an analysis of the type of data and level of evidence provided was performed. The selected articles were compared and conclusions regarding the specific markers addressed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 255 articles identified that reported human studies, we had access to the full text for 169 of them. We selected 71 prospective studies to include in our analysis. The studies were divided based on the primary marker studied: 22 analyzed inflammatory and immunological markers, 9 adhesivity and migration markers, 18 genetic polymorphisms, 7 oxidative stress, 4 micro-RNA circulating fragments, and 11 other biological markers (hormonal receptors, leukocytes, and others). CONCLUSIONS: CA 125 remains the most recommended marker for suspicion of endometriosis and follow-up. Other markers, such as CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and endometrial cells in peripheral blood, have more value for differentiating endometriosis from other pathologies, while circulating micro-RNA could help clarify the endometrial stem cell's implication in its pathogeny. Finally, other new urinary markers could be used in early diagnostic and screening strategies.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Biomarkers CA-125 Antigen Endometriosis Antigens, Tumor-Associated, Carbohydrate Antigens, Tumor-Associated, Carbohydrate Antigens, Tumor-Associated, Carbohydrate Biomarkers Biomarkers CA-125 Antigen CA-125 Antigen CA-19-9 Antigen CA-19-9 Antigen CA-19-9 Antigen Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Female Humans Humans

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 ]

Cited by (17)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-11T09:27:45.537177+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:19:26.535059+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK