Home > Riviste > Minerva Ginecologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Articles online first > Minerva Ginecologica 2017 Mar 07

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Estratti

MINERVA GINECOLOGICA

Rivista di Ostetricia e Ginecologia


Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index


eTOC

 

Minerva Ginecologica 2017 Mar 07

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.17.04046-1

Copyright © 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

An update on the biological markers of endometriosis

Razvan SOCOLOV 1, Demetra SOCOLOV 1 , Allia SINDILAR 2, Ioana PAVALEANU 1

1 Department of Obstetrics Gynecology Neonatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Gr T Popa, Iasi, Romania; 2 Department of Anatomy and Human Morphology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Gr T Popa, Iasi, Romania


PDF  


BACKGROUND: 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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.


KEY WORDS: Endometriosis - Biological markers - CA 125 - Prognostic factors - Non invasive diagnostic

inizio pagina

Publication History

Per citare questo articolo

Corresponding author e-mail

socolov@hotmail.com