What effects can long term low estrogen cause?
An often used treatment for endometriosis is to lower the estrogen in a woman’s body via hormonal suppression. Birth control can mimic a pregnancy state, while other treatments, such as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), can mimic a menopausal state. So what does estrogen do in the body and why do they want to lower it?
Estrogen not only affects the reproductive organs, but it also affects the heart and blood vessels, bones, breasts, skin, hair, mucous membranes, pelvic muscles, the urinary tract, and the brain (University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester, n.d.). All these different tissues have estrogen receptors (ER) on them that, when activated by estrogen, tell the cell how to behave. Endometriosis also has estrogen receptors. Estrogen, via these receptors, cause an increase in endometriotic “lesion size, fluid volume, increased epithelial cell height, and epithelial cell proliferation” (Burns et al., 2012). The thought is that by decreasing estrogen, the endometriotic lesions can be “tamed”, so to speak. However, estrogen still has receptors in all those other tissues and has an important role in the functioning of those other areas.
According to Medical New Today (De Pietro, 2018), low estrogenic states can have the following effects:
- “Weak bones: Estrogen helps keep the bones healthful and strong. As estrogen levels decrease, bone loss may occur. For example, women who are post-menopausal are at an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and bone fractures.
- Painful intercourse: Estrogen can affect vaginal lubrication. If levels become too low, vaginal dryness can occur, which often leads to painful sex.
- Hot flashes: Hot flashes often happen during menopause due to low estrogen levels.
- Depression: Estrogen is thought to increase serotonin, which is a chemical in the brain that boosts mood. Estrogen deficiency may cause a decline in serotonin that contributes to mood swings or depression.
- Increase in urinary tract infections: Increased urinary tract infections may occur due to the thinning of the tissue in the urethra, which can develop with decreased estrogen.”
The low estrogenic states induced by the medications can cause side-effects similar to menopause: “hot flashes/sweats, headache/migraine, decreased libido (interest in sex), depression/emotional lability (changes in mood), dizziness, nausea/vomiting, pain, vaginitis, and weight gain” (LupronDepot, n.d.). When estrogen is lowered to a chemically induced menopausal state for a long time, it can cause serious effects. “Regardless of the cause,…women who experience premature menopause (before age 40 years) or early menopause (between ages 40 and 45 years) experience an increased risk of overall mortality, cardiovascular diseases, neurological diseases, psychiatric diseases, osteoporosis, and other sequelae” (Shuster et al., 2010). The effect on bone health is why GnRHa medications are recommended as treatment for no longer than 12 months total therapy (two 6-month treatments)- “due to concerns about adverse impact on bone thinning” (LupronDepot, n.d.). This thinning of the bones “may not be completely reversible in some patients” (LupronDepot, n.d.). This should be considered and discussed with your provider when looking at long term options.
When looking at effectiveness of treatment with hormonal medications:
“Combined oral contraceptive pills (COCP), GnRHa and progestogens are equally effective in relieving endometriosis associated pelvic pain. COCP and progestogens are relatively cheap and more suitable for long-term use as compared to GnRHa. Long-term RCT of medicated contraceptive devices like Mirena and Implanon are required to evaluate their long-term effects on relieving the endometriosis associated pelvic pain.” (Wong & Lim, 2011)
References
Burns, K. A., Rodriguez, K. F., Hewitt, S. C., Janardhan, K. S., Young, S. L., & Korach, K. S. (2012). Role of estrogen receptor signaling required for endometriosis-like lesion establishment in a mouse model. Endocrinology, 153(8), 3960-3971. doi: 10.1210/en.2012-1294
De Pietro, M. (2018). What happens when estrogen levels are low?. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321064.php#diagnosis
LupronDepot. (n.d.). Lupron Depot for endometriosis. Retrieved from https://www.luprongyn.com/lupron-for-endometriosis
Shuster, L. T., Rhodes, D. J., Gostout, B. S., Grossardt, B. R., & Rocca, W. A. (2010). Premature menopause or early menopause: long-term health consequences. Maturitas, 65(2), 161-166. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.08.003
University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester. (n.d.). Estrogen’s effects on the female body. Retrieved from https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=85&ContentID=P00559
Wong, W. S. F., & Lim, C. E. D. (2011). Hormonal treatment for endometriosis associated pelvic pain. Iranian journal of reproductive medicine, 9(3), 163. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575749/
Is there a link between heart disease and endometriosis?
Estrogen has a protective effect on the heart, so low estrogen states induced by surgical menopause or long term estrogen suppression should be considered when considering treatment (Iorga et al., 2017).
There is not much literature about endometriosis and heart disease. Marchandot et al. (2022) reports that there are some overlaps in contributors to both heart disease and endometriosis, such as “chronic inflammation, enhanced oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, and cellular proliferation.” Some research indicates “increased arterial stiffness and impaired flow-mediated dilation, a surrogate marker of endothelial dysfunction potentially reversible after surgical treatment, were associated with endometriosis” (Marchandot et al., 2022).
Some risk factors for heart disease have been found in those with endometriosis, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity. Research suggests that the link between hypertension and endometriosis may be because of certain treatments for endometriosis, namely from early hysterectomy/oophorectomy and from use of NSAIDs (Marchandot et al., 2022). In fact, “hysterectomy in women aged 50 years or younger has been associated with a significantly increased risk of ischaemic heart disease, with oophorectomy linked to an increased risk of both [coronary artery disease] and stroke” (Marchandot et al., 2022). Shuster et al. (2010) add that “regardless of the cause…women who experience premature menopause (before age 40 years) or early menopause (between ages 40 and 45 years) experience an increased risk of overall mortality, cardiovascular diseases, neurological diseases, psychiatric diseases, osteoporosis, and other sequelae.” High cholesterol has also been associated with endometriosis- a 25% increased risk in those with endometriosis (Marchandot et al., 2022). Marchandot et al. (2022) also reports that “the role of hormonal treatment strategies for endometriosis, including combined oral contraceptives, progestins, and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, has been highly questioned regarding a potentially enhanced lipid profile, cardiovascular risk profile, and weight gain.”
Marchandot et al. (2022) urge caution in interpreting results as “only small associations between endometriosis and CVD have been reported in the literature” and that current studies have been limited “by small sample sizes, observational designs, and the specific characteristics of the population from which the samples are derived (high-income countries, cohort study of hospital-based healthcare workers, primarily Caucasian Europeans, etc.).” They also state that endometriosis treatments influence cardiovascular risk factors (“the confounding influence of hormonal, non-hormonal, and pain-related interventions further complicate the cause-and-effect relationship in CV endpoints”) (Marchandot et al. 2022).
References
Marchandot, B., Curtiaud, A., Matsushita, K., Trimaille, A., Host, A., Faller, E., … & Morel, O. (2022). Endometriosis and cardiovascular disease. European Heart Journal Open, 2(1), oeac001. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeac001
Shuster, L. T., Rhodes, D. J., Gostout, B. S., Grossardt, B. R., & Rocca, W. A. (2010). Premature menopause or early menopause: long-term health consequences. Maturitas, 65(2), 161-166. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.08.003
- Mu, F., Rich-Edwards, J., Rimm, E. B., Spiegelman, D., & Missmer, S. A. (2016). Endometriosis and risk of coronary heart disease. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 9(3), 257-264. Retrieved from http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/9/3/257
“In this large, prospective cohort, laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis was associated with increased risk of CHD. The association was strongest among young women. Hysterectomy/oophorectomy was associated with higher risk of CHD and could partially explain the association between endometriosis and CHD.”
- Iorga, A., Cunningham, C. M., Moazeni, S., Ruffenach, G., Umar, S., & Eghbali, M. (2017). The protective role of estrogen and estrogen receptors in cardiovascular disease and the controversial use of estrogen therapy. Biology of sex differences, 8(1), 1-16. Retrieved from https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-017-0152-8
“The lower incidence of cardiovascular disease in women during reproductive age is attributed at least in part to estrogen (E2). E2 binds to the traditional E2 receptors (ERs), estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), and estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), as well as the more recently identified G-protein-coupled ER (GPR30), and can exert both genomic and non-genomic actions. This review summarizes the protective role of E2 and its receptors in the cardiovascular system and discusses its underlying mechanisms with an emphasis on oxidative stress, fibrosis, angiogenesis, and vascular function.”
Is there a genetic component to endometriosis?
Is there a genetic component to endometriosis? According to various studies, there is. (You can find links to several of these studies, including the ones below, in Origin Theories of Endometriosis.) This past week someone asked if there is an increased risk if there is a family history on your father’s side. According to this study, there is a “definite kinship factor with maternal and paternal inheritance contributing”.
Another often asked question is how strong is the risk associated within families. According to one study, there is an estimated 5.2 increased risk between sisters and a 1.6 increased risk in cousins. The study also stated that among twins, there was a 51% increased risk. Another study indicated that there is a “sixfold increased risk for first-degree relatives of women with laparoscopically confirmed diagnosis of endometriosis”. Another study indicates a “first-degree relatives of affected women are 5 to 7 times more likely to have surgically confirmed disease”. Yet another study indicated that there is a stronger association with genetic risk for “severe” disease versus “minimal” or “moderate”. (Remember that disease severity in staging is based on the anatomy affected and fertility not necessarily the severity of symptoms- see more about that here.)
While this doesn’t mean a relative will definitely have endometriosis just because you do, it does indicate an increased risk, especially for first degree relatives. There are several genes noted to be involved in endometriosis and several mechanisms on how those genes are expressed in endometriosis. While these studies are paving the way to understanding endometriosis, there is still much to be learned.
Can endometriosis persist after hysterectomy/ovary removal/menopause?
Can endometriosis persist after hysterectomy/ovary removal/menopause?
Yes, it can:
Endometriosis does not “die off” or go away with a hysterectomy or menopause. Some people do find some relief from their symptoms, but endometriosis can still persist. Endometriosis often has several related or comorbid conditions (such as adenomyosis or fibroids) that share similar symptoms (pain with menstruation, chronic pelvic pain, etc.) that a hysterectomy might help – but it may not stop your symptoms from endometriosis. Endometriosis exists outside of the uterus and can still respond to hormonal influences (Bulun et al., 2002). Even if your ovaries are removed, endometriosis lesions can produce their own estrogen (Huhtinen et al., 2012). This is important to note because estrogen causes endometriosis lesions to grow and persist (Bulun et al., 2012). So even with the removal of the ovaries or with menopause, endometriosis can sustain itself.
There is high recurrence of symptoms with the removal of just the uterus; but, even with the removal of the ovaries, any endometriosis lesions left behind can continue to grow, progress, and cause symptoms (Clayton et al., 1999; Inceboz, 2015; Khan et al., 2013; Rizk et al., 2014). So, if you have your uterus and ovaries removed for other conditions, it is best that all endometriosis lesions be removed as well. The skill of the surgeon at removing all endometriosis is important. Rizk et al. (2014) report that “the recurrence of endometriosis symptoms and pelvic pain are directly correlated to the surgical precision and removal of peritoneal and deeply infiltrated disease.”
Endometriosis has been found in about 2.2% of postmenopausal women (Zanello et al., 2019). Inceboz (2015) states that “endometriotic lesions remained biologically active, with proliferative activity and preserved hormonal responsiveness, even in the lower estrogenic environment in the postmenopause.” Postmenopausal endometriosis should be managed surgically according to Streuli et al. (2017) and Zanello et al. (2019).
What about hormone replacement if you are in menopause or have had your uterus and ovaries removed? Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is important as “the hypo-estrogenic state was demonstrated to be a risk factor for cardiovascular and bone disease” (Zanello et al., 2019). While HRT has not been concluded useful for preventing heart disease, it can be useful for those at a higher risk of osteoporosis (Zanello et al., 2019). There isn’t much data available to help guide the decision, but Zanello et al. (2019) report that “in young menopausal women with premature or surgically-induced menopause the benefits of HRT probably overcome the risks” and “in women with residual endometriosis after surgery, the use of HRT should be discussed and the risk of recurrence should be carefully considered before starting an estrogen-based replacement therapy”. Rizk et al. (2014) also states that “the general consensus is that the benefits outweigh the risks” and that starting HRT soon after menopause does not seem to have a faster rate of recurrence. Zanello et al. (2019) concludes that “based on low-grade evidence in the literature, we recommend prescribing combined HRT instead of unopposed estrogen.” It also depends on if your endometriosis was removed.
Links:
Hysterectomy is the removal of uterus. Oophorectomy is the removal of an ovary. If one has had a hysterectomy, then that person can still have ovaries. If one has had a hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, then that person has had the uterus and both ovaries removed. At that point, you will usually see it as a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy (removal of uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries). It is an important clarification when talking about endometriomas. If both ovaries are removed, endometriomas can reoccur from ovarian remnants (search ovarian remnant syndrome).
- Yildiz, S., Kaya, C., Alay, I., Cengiz, H., Ekin, M., & Yasar, L. (2020). The pain symptoms and mass recurrence rates after ovarian cystectomy or uni/bilateral oophorectomy procedures in patients over 40 years old with endometriosis. Ginekologia Polska, 91(6), 295-300. Retrieved from https://journals.viamedica.pl/ginekologia_polska/article/view/66168
“The recurrence rate following endometrioma surgery was 13.3% in the cystectomy group, 10.3% in the USO group and 6.9% in the BSO group. There were no statistically significant differences in the recurrence rate between the groups. Additionally, a type of recurrence analysis was conducted between the cystectomy group (pain 6.7%, mass 6.7%), USO group (pain 7.7%, mass 2.6%), and BSO group (pain 6.9%, mass 0%); and there were no statistically significant difference within these groups….In different studies evaluating the pathophysiology of recurrence, it has been suggested that the recurrent lesion may derived from remaining tissue. Failure to completely remove pathological tissues at the time of primary surgery may increase the likelihood of recurrence to endometrioma, and the larger part of recurrent lesions were formed in the same area [31–32]. Thus, during the primary surgery for endometriosis, an excellent surgical technique and the experienced endometrioma surgeons are critical due to the capability of pathologic residual tissue to grow.”
*cystectomy- removal of the cyst, USO (unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy)- removal of one ovary and fallopian tube, BSO (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy)- removal of both ovaries and fallopian tubes
- Meserve, E. E., & Crum, C. P. (2018). Benign conditions of the ovary. In Diagnostic Gynecologic and Obstetric Pathology (pp. 761-799). Content Repository Only!. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/ovarian-remnant-syndrome
“Ovarian remnant syndrome is defined as the presence of symptomatic residual ovarian tissue, usually following a complete hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.175 It is believed to be the result of unintentional residual ovarian tissue left behind during a difficult oophorectomy, as with the dense adhesions associated with endometriosis or multiple prior procedures.176 The typical clinical presentation is pelvic pain and a palpable mass, often following multiple prior pelvic surgical procedures. The actual incidence is not known, but in one study, more than 20% of patients undergoing posthysterectomy laparoscopy for persistent pain and a mass were found to have residual ovarian tissue.177 Residual ovarian tissue is removed by either laparoscopy or laparotomy and may require multiple procedures.”
References
Bulun, S. E., Gurates, B., Fang, Z., Tamura, M., Sebastian, S., Zhou, J., … & Yang, S. (2002). Mechanisms of excessive estrogen formation in endometriosis. Journal of reproductive immunology, 55(1-2), 21-33. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0378(01)00132-2
Bulun, S. E., Monsavais, D., Pavone, M. E., Dyson, M., Xue, Q., Attar, E., … & Su, E. J. (2012, January). Role of estrogen receptor-β in endometriosis. In Seminars in reproductive medicine (Vol. 30, No. 01, pp. 39-45). Thieme Medical Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034571/…
Clayton, R. D., Hawe, J. A., Love, J. C., Wilkinson, N., & Garry, R. (1999). Recurrent pain after hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy for endometriosis: evaluation of laparoscopic excision of residual endometriosis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 106(7), 740-744. Retrieved from https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08377.x?fbclid=IwAR04aFoLsukqsYutNPNXtJNZpKLNEJbgOOon334NW8D7wvwzZMWaS2YaZts
Huhtinen, K., Ståhle, M., Perheentupa, A., & Poutanen, M. (2012). Estrogen biosynthesis and signaling in endometriosis. Molecular and cellular endocrinology, 358(2), 146-154. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303720711005041
Inceboz, U. (2015). Endometriosis after menopause. Women’s Health, 11(5), 711-715. Retreived from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2217/whe.15.59
Khan, K. N., Kitajima, M., Fujishita, A., Nakashima, M., & Masuzaki, H. (2013). Toll‐like receptor system and endometriosis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 39(8), 1281-1292. Retrieved from https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jog.12117
Rizk, B., Fischer, A. S., Lotfy, H. A., Turki, R., Zahed, H. A., Malik, R., … & Herrera, D. (2014). Recurrence of endometriosis after hysterectomy. Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 6(4), 219. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286861/
Zanello, M., Borghese, G., Manzara, F., Degli Esposti, E., Moro, E., Raimondo, D., … & Seracchioli, R. (2019). Hormonal replacement therapy in menopausal women with history of endometriosis: a review of literature. Medicina, 55(8), 477. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6723930/
Is There Microscopic or Occult Endometriosis
- Redwine, D. B. (2003). ‘Invisible’microscopic endometriosis: a review. Gynecologic and obstetric investigation, 55(2), 63-67. Retrieved from https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/70176
“Endometriosis can have very subtle visual appearances. All theories of origin imply some early and presumably tiny form of the disease which potentially cannot be detected by the unaided human eye. A review of the literature indicates that with increasing magnification at surgery, virtually all endometriosis can be visualized. Invisible microscopic endometriosis is an unproven entity which retards intellectual progress in the study of this disease.”
- Hopton, E. N., & Redwine, D. B. (2014). Eyes wide shut: the illusory tale of ‘occult’microscopic endometriosis. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d175/3f319667402196d6d52d740c8616c144bdd1.pdf
“In this issue of Human Reproduction, Khan et al. (2013) revive the debate on the existence and clinical relevance of invisible microscopic endometriosis (IME)—now renamed by them as occult microscopic endometriosis (OME). They report new evidence for immunoreactive microscopic endometriosis in visually normal peritoneum during laparoscopy, as well as an incidence of OME, which is higher than that reported in previous laparoscopic studies of visually normal peritoneum (Redwine, 1988a; Redwine and Yocom, 1990; Nezhat et al., 1991). It is important to outline the concepts central to any discussion on OME— namely, the definition of OME, the criteria and methodology employed to identify visually normal peritoneum, and the definition of endometriosis applied in judging the presence or absence of disease in the biopsied tissue.
“In defining OME an important distinction must be drawn between failure to recognize visually detectable areas of disease and the presence of microscopic disease that truly cannot be visually detected by the laparoscope. Recognition of the complete morphological repertoire of endometriosis, in all its protean presentations, and the utilization of well-defined criteria and methodology to detect all areas of visually abnormal peritoneum are paramount. Doing so ensures that contributions to the IME/OME literature are internally valid, reproducible and can be critically evaluated within the context of the existing body of research. Moreover, consensus is needed as to the histological definition of endometriosis. If different authors apply ever-broader definitions of disease, there is a risk of defining endometriosis into existence from any histologic appearance. The concept of OME is of importance not only in predicting the outcomes and clinical utility of the complete surgical excision of endometriosis but also has far-reaching implications regarding disease phenomenology, pathogenesis and prognosis as indicated in the historical quote introduced in this editorial (Redwine, 1990). How confused has the endometriosis literature become by virtue of incomplete identification of disease? Murphy et al. (1986) introduced the concept of OME in, reporting microscopic disease in visually normal peritoneum in 25% of a series of 20 patients undergoing laparotomy for endometriosis. This prevalence of OME remains to this day the highest rate ever reported. No formal criteria for normal peritoneum were used in that study, however, and the peritoneal surfaces were viewed at arm’s length and with the limited illumination attendant to laparotomy. Subsequent studies conducted via laparoscopy found ever-smaller rates of OME (Nisolle et al., 1990; Balasch et al., 1996), which seemed to correlate directly with the distance between the tip of the laparoscope and the peritoneal surface being examined (Redwine, 2003). With sufficient magnification, OME virtually ceases to exist (Redwine, 1988a; Redwine and Yocom, 1990; Nezhat et al., 1991). Khan et al. (2013) dispute this thesis in their current publication. We will now turn to examine whether this challenge is valid. To support or reject the previously published findings, authors must use substantially the same methodology. The methodology of Khan et al. (2013) differs significantly from the methodology of Redwine (1988a) and Redwine and Yocom (1990) in four critical ways: (i). viewing distance, (ii) adherence to criteria of normal peritoneum, (iii) size and location of biopsies and (iv) histologic definition of endometriosis. The viewing distance of Khan et al. (2013) was stated to be 4 cm from the peritoneal surface, which differs markedly both from the nearcontact laparoscopy used by Redwine (1988a), and Redwine and Yocom (1990), in which the viewing distance was typically ,1 cm, and the viewing distance of Nezhat et al. (1991), which was ,2 cm. If Fig. 1 of Khan et al.’s article represents their viewing distance, it is clear that their methodology differs from the aforementioned studies, since a panoramic view of the pelvis is shown. The incidence of OME at the authors’ viewing distance is predictable from the graph in Fig. 1—their findings are not new. Khan et al.’s (2013) criteria of normal peritoneum roughly follow that of Redwine (1988a) and Redwine and Yocom (1990) but their surgical stills show a clear departure from these criteria as shown in our annotations of the same photos (Fig. 2). These subtle peritoneal changes are more obvious on the high-definition image, which was supplied with the authors’ submission. If the viewing distance was decreased, even more abnormalities might be obvious. The two surgical stills presented in Fig. 2 of this commentary undermine Khan et al.’s methodology and results….
“For readers of this journal, what can be learned from Khan et al.’s (2013) paper? Although their different methodologies do not support a valid rejection of Nezhat’s et al. (1991), Redwine’s (1988a) and Redwine and Yocom’s (1990) findings, the authors have nonetheless provided even more evidence of a very important point: most women with endometriosis do not have OME. Thus, patients and surgeons alike can be encouraged that proper identification of subtle forms of endometriosis combined with aggressive excision of disease will not leave behind a great burden of overlooked foci of OME of uncertain clinical significance.”
Does endometriosis increase my risk of cancer?
- Poole, E. M., Lin, W. T., Kvaskoff, M., De Vivo, I., Terry, K. L., & Missmer, S. A. (2017). Endometriosis and risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers in a large prospective cohort of US nurses. Cancer Causes & Control, 28(5), 437-445. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-017-0856-4
“This study adds to the evidence that endometriosis is not strongly linked to endometrial cancer risk and that the association with ovarian cancer is robust to misclassification, diagnostic delay, and changes in exposures post-endometriosis diagnosis. Our analysis suggests that confounding and misclassification do not obscure a weak association for endometrial cancer risk, although our results should be replicated.”
- Szubert, M., Suzin, J., Obirek, K., Sochacka, A., & Łoszakiewicz, M. (2016). Clear cell ovarian cancer and endometriosis: is there a relationship?. Przeglad menopauzalny= Menopause review, 15(2), 85. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993982/
“According to the most recent systematic review of the literature, the risk is small and is 1.321.7//1.3217 (95% CI) [7]. There are many publications on the relationship of endometriosis with ovarian clear cell carcinoma, however, it is not known whether these two diseases have a common aetiology and whether the relationship is sequential in nature, i.e. endometriosis developing into cancer through malignant transformation [8]…. In our clinical material, OCCC is a rare histopathological specimen with prognosis comparable to that of serous ovarian cancer. Establishing the cause-and-effect relationship between this histopathological subtype and endometriosis cannot be proved based on clinical material of only one clinic or operative ward.”
- Mogensen, J. B., Kjær, S. K., Mellemkjær, L., & Jensen, A. (2016). Endometriosis and risks for ovarian, endometrial and breast cancers: a nationwide cohort study. Gynecologic oncology, 143(1), 87-92. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0090825816309647
“Endometriosis was associated with increased risks for ovarian cancer (SIR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.16–1.55), due primarily to endometrioid (SIR 1.64; 95% CI: 1.09–2.37) and clear-cell types (SIR 3.64; 95% CI: 2.36–5.38). An excess risk was also observed for endometrial cancer (SIR 1.43; 95% CI: 1.13–1.79), primarily of type 1 (SIR 1.54; 95% CI: 1.20–1.96); and the risk for breast cancer was increased among women aged ≥ 50 years at first diagnosis of endometriosis (SIR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.12–1.42). Conclusions: The results corroborate previous findings of increased risks for endometrioid and clear-cell ovarian cancer in women with endometriosis. As the first cohort study to date, we observed a significantly increased risk for endometrial cancer in women with a diagnosis of endometriosis. The increased breast cancer risk among women with endometriosis diagnosed at ≥ 50 years of age should be studied further.”
- Bulun, S. E., Wan, Y., & Matei, D. (2019). Epithelial mutations in endometriosis: link to ovarian cancer. Endocrinology, 160(3), 626-638. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/160/3/626/5289718
“Unlike epithelial cells, endometriotic stromal cells are mutation free but contain widespread epigenetic defects that alter gene expression and induce a progesterone-resistant and intensely inflammatory environment, driven by estrogen via estrogen receptor-β. The resulting increased estrogenic action in the stroma drives inflammation and sends paracrine signals to neighboring epithelial cells to enhance proliferation. In addition, massively high concentrations of estrogen in the ovary may exert an additional and direct genotoxic effect on DNA and cause accumulation of additional mutations and malignant transformation in initially mutated endometriotic epithelial cells in an ovarian endometrioma, which may initiate epithelial ovarian cancer. The same epithelial mutations and inflammatory processes in stroma are seen in extraovarian deep-infiltrating endometriosis, but carcinogenesis does not occur. We provide a focused review of the literature and discuss the implications of recent genetic breakthroughs linking endometriosis and ovarian cancer.”
- Erickson, B. K., Conner, M. G., & Landen Jr, C. N. (2013). The role of the fallopian tube in the origin of ovarian cancer. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 209(5), 409-414. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002937813003827
“A majority of the serous tumors appear to originate from dysplastic lesions in the distal fallopian tube. Therefore, what we have traditionally considered “ovarian” cancer may in fact be tubal in origin.”
Is endometriosis an autoimmune disease?
- Medical News Today. (2019). Is endometriosis an autoimmune disease?. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326108#summary
“Experts do not classify endometriosis as an autoimmune disease. However, endometriosis may increase a person’s risk of developing an autoimmune disease, as well as other chronic conditions. The reason for the link is unclear, but it might exist because endometriosis causes inflammation, which may contribute to an imbalanced immune response. An autoimmune disease is one in which the body mistakenly attacks its cells, tissues, or organs. The resulting damage can cause a wide variety of symptoms, depending on which part of the body it affects. The abnormal immune response that occurs in endometriosis may be due to an existing autoimmune disorder…. Endometriosis is not an autoimmune disease, but some evidence suggests that there is a link between endometriosis and several autoimmune conditions….If a person with endometriosis is concerned about their risk of developing an autoimmune disease or thinks that an existing autoimmune disease may be affecting their endometriosis symptoms, they should speak to a doctor.”
- Shigesi, N., Kvaskoff, M., Kirtley, S., Feng, Q., Fang, H., Knight, J. C., … & Becker, C. M. (2019). The association between endometriosis and autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human reproduction update, 25(4), 486-503. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/25/4/486/5518352
“The observed associations between endometriosis and autoimmune diseases suggest that clinicians need to be aware of the potential coexistence of endometriosis and autoimmune diseases when either is diagnosed. Scientists interested in research studies on endometriosis or autoimmune diseases should consider the likelihood of comorbidity when studying these two types of health conditions.”
Links
Myths and Misinformation
There are several red flags of perpetual myths to watch for when evaluating information about endometriosis. Here are a few to be aware of:
- “Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment for endometriosis.” Or variations of this theme: “Removing your uterus and/or ovaries will cure you”. Many people with endometriosis also experience problems with their uterus or ovaries (such as adenomyosis, fibroids, and other conditions that can contribute to chronic pelvic pain) that could benefit from a hysterectomy. However, using a hysterectomy to treat endometriosis alone may still leave you susceptible to continued symptoms and other problems from remaining lesions [one example: hydronephrosis from endometriosis left around ureters (Bawin, Troisfontaines, & Nisolle, 2013)].
- “Persistent or recurrent endometriosis after a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH BSO) has been reported by several investigators.” (Hasty & Murphy, 1995)
- “According to literature, there are no randomized controlled trials for hysterectomy as the treatment for endometriosis.” (Bellelis, 2019)
- “Endometriosis which is not removed at the time of hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy may represent after a variable time interval with many or all of the symptoms which prompted the original surgery. This tissue can be highly active and responsive to exogenous hormonal stimulation. In the presence of troublesome symptoms, excision of residual endometriosis may be effective and should be considered.” (Clayton et al., 1999)
- “A high recurrence rate of 62% is reported in advanced stages of endometriosis in which the ovaries were conserved. Ovarian conservation carries a 6 fold risk of recurrent pain and 8 folds risk of reoperation. The decision has to be weighed taking into consideration the patient’s age and the impact of early menopause on her life style. The recurrence of endometriosis symptoms and pelvic pain are directly correlated to the surgical precision and removal of peritoneal and deeply infiltrated disease. Surgical effort should always aim to eradicate the endometriotic lesions completely to keep the risk of recurrence as low as possible.” (Rizk et al., 2014)
- “We found that among women undergoing hysterectomy, endometriosis was associated with a higher degree of prescription of analgesics. In the endometriosis group the prescription of analgesic, psychoactive and neuroactive drugs did not decrease significantly after surgery. In fact, the prescription of psychoactive and neuroactive drugs increased.” (Brunes et al., 2020)
- “Studies have showed that the growth and progression of endometriosis continue even in ovariectomized animals.” (Khan et al., 2013)
- “All of your endo will die off in menopause.” Whether natural, surgically induced, or medically induced, there are cases of endometriosis continuing after menopause. Endometriosis lesions are capable of producing their own estrogen (Huhtinen, Ståhle, Perheentupa, & Poutanen, 2012). Another spin off is that “you are too old to have endometriosis”. Inceboz (2015) reports cases of endometriosis in the 8th and 9th decade of life.
- “As an estrogen-dependent disease, endometriosis was thought to become less active or regress with the onset of the menopause. However, based on some new data, we are discovering that this pathology can emerge or reappear at this period of life.” (Marie-Scemama, Even, De La Joliniere, & Ayoubi, 2019)
- “Endometriotic lesions remained biologically active, with proliferative activity and preserved hormonal responsiveness, even in the lower estrogenic environment in the postmenopause.” (Inceboz, 2015)
- “True prevalence of postmenopausal endometriosis is unknown. There have been some reports in the literature on the prevalence of endometriosis in postmenopausal women [5–8]. According to these studies, the prevalence of postmenopausal endometriosis is 2–5%…. Interestingly, nine of the cases were at the upper extreme of the age groups (eight were in 80–85 years and a case in 90–95 years).” (Inceboz, 2015)
- “Occurrence or progression of postmenopausal endometriosis lesions could be related to extra-ovarian production of estrogen by endometriosis lesions and adipose tissue, which becomes the major estrogen-producing tissue after menopause. Postmenopausal women with symptomatic endometriosis should be managed surgically…” (Streuli, Gaitzsch, Wenger, & Petignat, 2017)
- “Getting pregnant will help.”
- “Although gynaecologists often advise women that pregnancy has a beneficial effect on endometriosis, few studies confirm this association. Owing to the paucity and limited quality of the data, we can conclude that the behaviour of endometriotic lesions during pregnancy seems to be variable, ranging from complete disappearance to increased growth. Despite some of the early authors questioning a positive effect (McArthur and Ulfelder, 1965; Schenken et al., 1987), the idea to recommend pregnancy as part of the treatment strategy for endometriosis persists to this day (Rubegni et al., 2003; Coccia et al., 2012; Benaglia et al., 2013). The few favourable early observations and very limited options to treat endometriosis seem to have generated the myth of a beneficial effect of pregnancy and initiation of the so-called ‘pseudopregnancy’ therapy. Endometriosis is associated with infertility, and a lower prevalence of endometriosis in pregnant than in non-pregnant women may have led clinicians and scientists to the view that pregnancy has a positive effect against the disease.” (Leeners, Damaso, Ochsenbein-Kölble, & Farquhar, 2018)
- “Mild endometriosis won’t affect fertility.” So-called “mild” or “minimal” endometriosis can affect the ability to get conceive (Carvalho et al., 2012). Also, “mild” or “minimal” endometriosis can still produce significant symptoms.
- “The purpose of this systematic review is to present studies regarding the association between pregnancy rates and the presence of early stages of endometriosis. Studies regarding infertility, minimal (stage I, American Society of Reproductive Medicine [ASRM]) and mild (stage II, ASRM) endometriosis were identified…Earlier stages of endometriosis play a critical role in infertility, and most likely negatively impact pregnancy outcomes.” (Carvalho, Below, Abrão, & Agarwal, 2012)
- “Hormonal suppressants will clean up the rest of the endometriosis.” Surgeons who perform endometriosis surgery exclusively (excision) versus a general gynecological/obstetric practice have more chance to develop skill in being able to identify and being able to remove ALL endometriosis lesions. Hormonal medications may be useful for other problems but cannot be relied upon to “clean up” or prevent reoccurrence.
- “Endometriotic stromal cells resist the antiproliferative effect of GnRH agonists and antagonists.” (Taniguchi et al., 2013)
- “This case demonstrates the obvious progression of deep rectal endometriosis despite 4 years of continuous hormonal therapy.” (Millochau et al., 2016)
- “Few studies of medical therapies for endometriosis report outcomes that are relevant to patients, and many women gain only limited or intermittent benefit from treatment.” (Becker et al., 2017)
- “There is currently no evidence to support any treatment being recommended to prevent the recurrence of endometriosis following conservative surgery.” (Sanghera et al., 2016)
- “A systematic review found that post-surgical hormonal treatment of endometriosis compared with surgery alone has no benefit for the outcomes of pain or pregnancy rates, but a significant improvement in disease recurrence in terms of decrease in rAFS score (mean = −2.30; 95% CI = −4.02 to −0.58) (Yap et al., 2004). Overall, however, it found that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that hormonal suppression in association with surgery for endometriosis is associated with a significant benefit with regard to any of the outcomes identified….Moreover, even if post-operation medication proves to be effective in reducing recurrence risk, it is questionable that ‘all’ patients would require such medication in order to reduce the risk of recurrence.” (Guo, 2009)
- “Many studies have investigated factors determining the recurrence of endometrioma and pain after surgery [16, 19, 20]…. Regardless of the mechanism, the present and previous studies suggest that postoperative medical treatment is known to delay but not completely prevent recurrence…. In our study, we also failed to observe a benefit for postoperative medication in preventing endometrioma and/or endometriosis-related pain recurrence.” (Li et al., 2019)
- “Furthermore, all currently approved drugs are suppressive and not curative. For example, creating a hormonal balance in patients by taking oral contraceptives, such as progestins and gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonists, may only relieve the associated inflammatory status and pain symptoms.” (Che et al., 2015)
- “If I respond to hormonal therapy then that means I have endometriosis.” Response to hormonal treatment, whether positive or negative, does NOT diagnose endometriosis or exclude it.
- “Relief of chronic pelvic pain symptoms, or lack of response, with preoperative hormonal therapy is not an accurate predictor of presence or absence of histologically confirmed endometriosis at laparoscopy.” (Jenkins, Liu, & White, 2008)
- “The definitive diagnosis of endometriosis can only be made by histopathology showing endometrial glands and stroma with varying degree of inflammation and fibrosis.” (Rafique & Decherney, 2017)
- “My scans didn’t show anything so I was told I didn’t have endometriosis.” Transvaginal ultrasounds and magnetic resonance imaging are becoming more sensitive in the hands of those with experience and can rule in instances of endometriosis (especially deep infiltrating endometriosis and endometriomas). However, it cannot rule out endometriosis.
- “Currently, there are no non‐invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis…. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis and using any non‐invasive tests should only be undertaken in a research setting.” (Nisenblat et al., 2016)
- “Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging can be used to diagnose ovarian endometriotic cysts and deep infiltrating endometriosis; but their performance is poor in the diagnosis of initial stages of endometriosis.” (Ferrero, 2019)
- “None of my tests showed I had endometriosis.”
- “Currently, there are no non‐invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis…. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis and using any non‐invasive tests should only be undertaken in a research setting.” (Nisenblat et al., 2016)
- “CA‐125 and other serum markers (such as CA 19‐9, serum protein PP14, interleukins, and angiogenetic factors) have been measured in women with endometriosis but they are not reliable for the diagnosis of the disease.” (Ferrero, 2019)
- “The majority of studies focused on a panel of biomarkers, rather than a single biomarker and were unable to identify a single biomolecule or a panel of biomarkers with sufficient specificity and sensitivity in endometriosis. Conclusion: Noninvasive biomarkers, proteomics, genomics, and miRNA microarray may aid the diagnosis, but further research on larger datasets along with a better understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms are needed.” (Anastasiu et al., 2020)
- “I was told I had IBS.”
- “Endometriosis can be commonly misdiagnosed as IBS [22] due to overlap in common symptoms and perhaps mechanisms of disease progression involving aberrant activation of inflammatory cascades.” (Torres-Reverón, Rivera-Lopez, Flores, & Appleyard, 2018)
- “You are too young to have endometriosis.” Or “you are too young to have adenomyosis or DIE.”
- “Endometriosis is a common finding in adolescents who have a history of chronic pelvic pain or dysmenorrhoea resistant to medical treatment, however the exact prevalence is unknown. Both early/superficial and advanced forms of endometriosis are found in adolescents, including ovarian endometriomas and deep endometriotic lesions. Whilst spontaneous resolution is possible, recent reports suggest that adolescent endometriosis can be a progressive condition, at least in a significant proportion of cases. It is also claimed that deep endometriosis has its roots in adolescence.” (Sarıdoğan, 2017)
- “The majority of adolescent girls with chronic pelvic pain not responding to conventional medical therapy have endometriosis (up to 80%). Laparoscopy with biopsy is the only way to diagnose endometriosis in the adolescent population, and depends on recognition of atypical manifestations of the disease.” (Yeung Jr, Gupta, & Gieg, 2017)
- “Adolescent endometriosis is not a rare condition.” (Audebert et al., 2015)
- “An increasing body of literature suggests that advanced-stage endometriosis (revised scoring system of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Stage III or IV) and deeply invasive endometriosis are relatively common in adolescents.” (Dowlut-McElroy & Strickland, 2017)
- “In all, 648 of 1011 (64%) adolescents undergoing laparoscopy were found to have endometriosis. The prevalence ranged from 25% to 100%, with a mean prevalence of 64%. Thirteen studies including 381 participants categorized disease severity using the revised American Society of Reproductive Medicine classification. Among these, 53% of participants (201/381) had stage I, 28% (105/381) had stage II, 20% (76/381) had stage III, and 13% (49/381) had stage IV disease. Conclusions: The prevalence of endometriosis among adolescents with pelvic pain symptoms is high. Endometriosis is treatable, and prompt recognition will help to ensure that adolescents are signposted earlier to appropriate specialists. The management of adolescents with suspected endometriosis should be consistent with best practice guidance. Despite recommendations to increase the awareness and knowledge of endometriosis in adolescence, minimal research has followed.” (Hirsch et al., 2020)
- “I have had 3 surgeries but my endo keeps coming back.” There are many different specialties with specific focuses. With repetitive surgeries or with endometriosis in certain locations (such as ureters, bowel, diaphragm, etc.), seeking someone who exclusively does surgery for endometriosis and its related conditions can be beneficial.
- “A multidisciplinary team approach (eg, gynecologic endoscopist, colorectal surgeon, urologist) can reduce risk and facilitate effective treatment.19 Likewise, advanced surgical skills and anatomical knowledge are required for deep resection and should be performed primarily in tertiary referral centers. Careful preoperative planning, informed consent, and meticulous adherence to “best practice” technique is requisite to reduce morbidity and ensure effective management of potential complications.90Although excisional biopsy and resection offers a higher success rate in treating the disease, surgical excision also requires a higher level of surgical skill. As a result, many patients receive incomplete treatment, which in turn may lead to persistent symptoms and recurrent disease. It should be noted that many women who have undergone repeated surgeries and had a hysterectomy still suffer.86 The need to improve surgical approach and/or engage in timely referrals is unquestionable. Surgery to debulk and excise endometriosis may be “more difficult than for cancer”. Complete removal of implants may be difficult due to variation in appearance and visibility. True surgical resection and treatment poses formidable challenges, even the hands of experienced clinicians. In particular, deep disease is often difficult to treat due to close proximity of and common infiltration in and around bowel, ureters, and uterine artery.18 Potential adenomyosis should also be included in the preoperative workup, as it can influence postoperative improvement patterns of pain and symptoms associated with endometriosis.” (Fishcer et al., 2013)
- “All of the studies were conducted by expert laparoscopic surgeons, whose results are unlikely to be reproduced by the generalist surgeon…. Based on the studies performed to date, it is the author’s opinion that laparoscopic excision of endometriosis, when technically feasible, should be the standard of care. First, whereas visual diagnosis of endometriosis is correct in only 57% to 72% of cases, excisional surgery yields specimens for histologic confirmation—and identifies endometriosis in 25% of “atypical” pelvic lesions as well.18 The availability of such specimens would prevent unnecessary treatment and ensure more reproducible research findings. Excision should also reduce the incidence of persistent disease secondary to inadequate “tip of the iceberg” destruction, removing both invasive and microscopic endometriosis to provide the best possible symptom relief.” (Jenkins, 2009)
- “Laparoscopic identification of superficial endometriosis implants represents a challenge for the gynecologic surgeon. Endometriosis lesions may present in a wide spectrum of appearance according to a “lifecycle” of the implants. The lesions can be flat or vesicular. They can have any combination of color typically red, back/brown and white. Active “red” lesions, large endometriomas, deep infiltrating nodules, and typical “powder-burn” lesions are easier to identify than “white” old fibrotic lesions. The endometriotic implants are hypervascular. The diagnostic accuracy at laparoscopy is also affected by the experience of the surgeon and the laparoscopic equipment [16].” (Jose, Fausto, & Antonio, 2018)
- “It’s all in your head.”
- “Women’s symptoms are frequently trivialized or disbelieved, consequently attributing pathology to the woman rather than the disease, which is deeply distressing [11]. These responses are underpinned by essentialist notions that pain is just part of being a woman. Lack of legitimation results in victim blaming, reinforces gendered stereotypes about feminine weakness, intensifies women’s distress and averts prompt action [10]. Similar essentialist ideas underlie observations that framing endometriosis as a fertility problem is more likely to result in health care intervention than when it is framed as symptom management. In one qualitative study, women described fertility as the entry point for discussion about endometriosis, despite having sought health care for symptoms over many years [12].” (Rowe & Quinlivan, 2020)
- “Endometriosis impairs the quality of life due to chronic and severe acyclic pelvic pain with associated dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, gastrointestinal problems, fatigue and headaches….women with endometriosis are often surrounded by taboos, myths, scourge of subfertility, pain of disease and missed diagnosis and treatment [22]. Delays in the diagnosis and initiation of treatment for the disease in fact occur due to these counterproductive factors operative both at the individual patient level and at the medical level resulting in frustration and loss of valuable time in the prime phase of life of the patient….Delays also occur at the medical level due to the delay in referral from primary to secondary care, pain normalized by clinicians, intermittent hormonal suppression of symptoms, use of non-discriminating investigations and insufficiency in awareness and lack of constructive support among a subset of healthcare providers [23,24,25,37,38]. In this connection, it is noteworthy that delay in diagnosis is longer for women reporting with pelvic pain compared with those reporting with infertility, which is suggestive of the fact that there is a higher level of reluctance surrounding endometriosis-associated pain symptoms….” (Ghosh et al., 2020)
- “Women had to ‘battle’ for an accurate diagnosis, and had limited faith in health professionals…. Conclusions: Implications for health professionals are discussed, including the need for earlier diagnosis and taking women’s symptoms more seriously at referral…” (Grogan, Turley, & Cole, 2018)
- “Despite its high prevalence and cost, endometriosis remains underfunded and underresearched, greatly limiting our understanding of the disease and slowing much-needed innovation in diagnostic and treatment options. Due in part to the societal normalization of women’s pain and stigma around menstrual issues…” (As-Sanie et al., 2019)
References
Anastasiu, C. V., Moga, M. A., Elena Neculau, A., Bălan, A., Scârneciu, I., Dragomir, R. M., … & Chicea, L. M. (2020). Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(5), 1750. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/5/1750
As-Sanie, S., Black, R., Giudice, L. C., Valbrun, T. G., Gupta, J., Jones, B., … & Taylor, R. N. (2019). Assessing research gaps and unmet needs in endometriosis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 221(2), 86-94. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002937819303850
Audebert, A., Lecointre, L., Afors, K., Koch, A., Wattiez, A., & Akladios, C. (2015). Adolescent endometriosis: report of a series of 55 cases with a focus on clinical presentation and long-term issues. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 22(5), 834-840. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25850071/
Bawin, I., Troisfontaines, E., & Nisolle, M. (2013). Clinical case of the month. Rare case of ureteral endometriosis nine years after hysterectomy. Revue medicale de Liege, 68(7-8), 378-381. Retrieved from https://europepmc.org/article/med/24053093
Becker, C. M., Gattrell, W. T., Gude, K., & Singh, S. S. (2017). Reevaluating response and failure of medical treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review. Fertility and sterility, 108(1), 125-136. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0015028217303606
Bellelis, P. (2019). 2607 Hysterectomy in Women with Endometriosis. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 26(7), S177. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465019307393
Brunes, M., Altman, D., Pålsson, M., Söderberg, M. W., & Ek, M. (2020). Impact of hysterectomy on analgesic, psychoactive and neuroactive drug use in women with endometriosis: Nationwide cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. Retreived from https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.16469
Carvalho, L. F. P., Below, A., Abrão, M. S., & Agarwal, A. (2012). Minimal and mild endometriosis negatively impact on pregnancy outcome. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 58(5), 607-614. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104423012702579
Che, X. H., Chen, Y. C., Chen, C. L., Ye, X. L., & Zhu, H. (2015). Non‐hormonal targets underlying endometriosis: A focus on molecular mechanisms. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 82(6), 410-431. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mrd.22493
Clayton, R. D., Hawe, J. A., Love, J. C., Wilkinson, N., & Garry, R. (1999). Recurrent pain after hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy for endometriosis: evaluation of laparoscopic excision of residual endometriosis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 106(7), 740-744. Retrieved from https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08377.x?fbclid=IwAR04aFoLsukqsYutNPNXtJNZpKLNEJbgOOon334NW8D7wvwzZMWaS2YaZts
Dowlut-McElroy, T., & Strickland, J. L. (2017). Endometriosis in adolescents. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 29(5), 306-309. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/2017/10000/Endometriosis_in_adolescents.6.aspx
Ferrero, S. (2019). Proteomics in the diagnosis of endometriosis: opportunities and challenges. PROTEOMICS–Clinical Applications, 13(3), 1800183. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/prca.201800183
Fischer, J., Giudice, L. C., Milad, M., Mosbrucker, C., & Sinervo, K. R. (2013). Diagnosis & management of endometriosis: pathophysiology to practice. APGO Educational Series on Women’s Health Issues. Retrieved from https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/diagnosis_and_management_of_endometriosis_booklet.pdf
Ghosh, D., Filaretova, L., Bharti, J., Roy, K. K., Sharma, J. B., & Sengupta, J. (2020). Pathophysiological Basis of Endometriosis-Linked Stress Associated with Pain and Infertility: A Conceptual Review. Reproductive Medicine, 1(1), 32-61. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3897/1/1/4/htm
Grogan, S., Turley, E., & Cole, J. (2018). ‘So many women suffer in silence’: a thematic analysis of women’s written accounts of coping with endometriosis. Psychology & health, 33(11), 1364-1378. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08870446.2018.1496252
Guo, S. W. (2009). Recurrence of endometriosis and its control. Human reproduction update, 15(4), 441-461. Retrieved from http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/4/441.full
Hasty, L. A., & Murphy, A. A. (1995). Management of recurrent endometriosis after hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. In Endometriosis (pp. 189-192). Springer, New York, NY. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-8404-5_18
Hirsch, M., Dhillon-Smith, R., Cutner, A., Yap, M., & Creighton, S. M. (2020). The prevalence of endometriosis in adolescents with pelvic pain: a systematic review. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32736134/
Huhtinen, K., Ståhle, M., Perheentupa, A., & Poutanen, M. (2012). Estrogen biosynthesis and signaling in endometriosis. Molecular and cellular endocrinology, 358(2), 146-154. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303720711005041
Inceboz, U. (2015). Endometriosis after menopause. Women’s Health, 11(5), 711-715. Retreived from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2217/whe.15.59
Jenkins, T. (2009). Endometriosis: The case for surgical excision. The Cutting Edge. Vol. 34, 19-23. Retrieved from https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/37376957/endometriosis-the-case-for-surgical-excision-skin-allergy-news
Jenkins, T. R., Liu, C. Y., & White, J. (2008). Does response to hormonal therapy predict presence or absence of endometriosis?. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 15(1), 82-86. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18262150/
Jose, C., Fausto, A., & Antonio, L. (2018). Laparoscopic Enhanced Imaging Modalities for the Identification of Endometriosis Implants a Review of the Current Status. MOJ Womens Health, 7(1), 00160. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jose_Carugno/publication/323777470_Laparoscopic_Enhanced_Imaging_Modalities_for_the_Identification_of_Endometriosis_Implants_a_Review_of_the_Current_Status/links/5b54617345851507a7bcd5c3/Laparoscopic-Enhanced-Imaging-Modalities-for-the-Identification-of-Endometriosis-Implants-a-Review-of-the-Current-Status.pdf
Khan, K. N., Kitajima, M., Fujishita, A., Nakashima, M., & Masuzaki, H. (2013). Toll‐like receptor system and endometriosis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 39(8), 1281-1292. Retrieved from https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jog.12117
Leeners, B., Damaso, F., Ochsenbein-Kölble, N., & Farquhar, C. (2018). The effect of pregnancy on endometriosis—facts or fiction?. Human reproduction update, 24(3), 290-299. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/24/3/290/4859612
Li, X. Y., Chao, X. P., Leng, J. H., Zhang, W., Zhang, J. J., Dai, Y., … & Wu, Y. S. (2019). Risk factors for postoperative recurrence of ovarian endometriosis: long-term follow-up of 358 women. Journal of Ovarian Research, 12(1), 79. Retrieved from https://ovarianresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13048-019-0552-y
Marie-Scemama, L., Even, M., De La Joliniere, J. B., & Ayoubi, J. M. (2019). Endometriosis and the menopause: Why the question merits our full attention. Hormone Molecular Biology and Clinical Investigation, 37(2). Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/hmbci/37/2/article-20180071.xml
Millochau, J. C., Abo, C., Darwish, B., Huet, E., Dietrich, G., & Roman, H. (2016). Continuous amenorrhea may be insufficient to stop the progression of colorectal endometriosis. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 23(5), 839-842. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465016300474
Nisenblat, V., Prentice, L., Bossuyt, P. M., Farquhar, C., Hull, M. L., & Johnson, N. (2016). Combination of the non‐invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7). Retrieved from https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012281/full
Rafique, S., & Decherney, A. H. (2017). Medical management of endometriosis. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology, 60(3), 485. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5794019/
Rizk, B., Fischer, A. S., Lotfy, H. A., Turki, R., Zahed, H. A., Malik, R., … & Herrera, D. (2014). Recurrence of endometriosis after hysterectomy. Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 6(4), 219. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286861/
Rowe, H., & Quinlivan, J. (2020). Let’s not forget endometriosis and infertility amid the covid-19 crisis. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0167482X.2020.1757200
Sanghera, S., Barton, P., Bhattacharya, S., Horne, A. W., & Roberts, T. E. (2016). Pharmaceutical treatments to prevent recurrence of endometriosis following surgery: a model-based economic evaluation. BMJ open, 6(4), e010580. Retrieved from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/4/e010580.long
Sarıdoğan, E. (2017). Adolescent endometriosis. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 209, 46-49. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301211516302330
Streuli, I., Gaitzsch, H., Wenger, J. M., & Petignat, P. (2017). Endometriosis after menopause: physiopathology and management of an uncommon condition. Climacteric, 20(2), 138-143. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13697137.2017.1284781
Taniguchi, F., Higaki, H., Azuma, Y., Deura, I., Iwabe, T., Harada, T., & Terakawa, N. (2013). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues reduce the proliferation of endometrial stromal cells but not endometriotic cells. Gynecologic and obstetric investigation, 75(1), 9-15. Retrieved from https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/343748
Torres-Reverón, A., Rivera-Lopez, L. L., Flores, I., & Appleyard, C. B. (2018). Antagonizing the corticotropin releasing hormone receptor 1 with antalarmin reduces the progression of endometriosis. PLoS One, 13(11), e0197698. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197698
Yeung Jr, P., Gupta, S., & Gieg, S. (2017). Endometriosis in adolescents: a systematic review. Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders, 9(1), 17-29. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.5301/je.5000264