Literature DB >> 23462390

External validation of the endometriosis fertility index (EFI) staging system for predicting non-ART pregnancy after endometriosis surgery.

C Tomassetti1, B Geysenbergh, C Meuleman, D Timmerman, S Fieuws, T D'Hooghe.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Can the ability of the endometriosis fertility index (EFI) to predict non-assisted reproductive technology (ART) pregnancy after endometriosis surgery be confirmed by an external validation study? SUMMARY ANSWER: The significant relationship between the EFI score and the time to non-ART pregnancy observed in our study represents an external validation of this scoring system. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The EFI was previously developed and tested prospectively in a single center, but up to now no external validation has been published. Our data provide validation of the EFI in an external fertility unit on a robust scientific basis, to identify couples with a good prognosis for spontaneous conception who can therefore defer ART treatment, regardless of their revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) endometriosis staging.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study where the EFI was calculated based on history and detailed surgical findings, and related to pregnancy outcome in 233 women attempting non-ART conception immediately after surgery; all data used for EFI calculation and analysis of reproductive outcome had been collected prospectively as part of another study. PARTICIPANTS AND
SETTING: The EFI score was calculated (score 0-10) for 233 women with all rAFS endometriosis stages (minimal-mild, n = 75; moderate-severe, n = 158) after endometriosis surgery (1 September 2006-30 September 2010) in a university hospital-based reproductive medicine unit with combined expertise in reproductive surgery and medically assisted reproduction. All participants attempted non-ART conception immediately after surgery by natural intercourse, ovulation induction with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination (with or without ovulation induction or controlled ovarian stimulation). DATA ANALYSIS
METHOD: All analyses were performed for three different definitions of pregnancy [overall (any HCG >25 IU/l), clinical and ongoing >20 weeks]. Six groups were distinguished (EFI scores 1-3, 4, 5, 6, 7+8, 9+10), and Kaplan-Meier (K-M) estimates for cumulative pregnancy rate were calculated. Subjects were censored when they were lost to follow-up, had subsequent surgery for endometriosis, started ovarian suppression or underwent ART. As K-M estimates might overestimate the actual event rate, cumulative incidence estimates treating ART as competing event were also calculated. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the performance of EFI and constituting variables. Performance of the score (prediction, discrimination) was quantified with the following methods: mean squared error of prediction (Brier score), areas under the receiver-operating curve and global concordance index C(τ). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was a highly significant relationship between the EFI and the time to non-ART pregnancy (cumulative overall pregnancy rate, P = 0.0004), with the K-M estimate of cumulative overall pregnancy rate at 12 months after surgery equal to 45.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 39.47-49.87]-ranging from 16.67% (95% CI 5.01-47.65) for EFI scores 0-3, to 62.55% (95% CI 55.18-69.94) for EFI scores 9-10. For each increase of 1 point in the EFI score, the relative risk of becoming pregnant increased by 31% (95% CI 16-47%; i.e. hazard ratio 1.31). The 'least function score'-which assesses the tubal/ovarian function at conclusion of surgery-was found to be the most important contributor to the total EFI score among all the other variables (age, duration of infertility, prior pregnancy, AFS endometriosis lesion and total score). BIAS, CONFOUNDING AND OTHER REASONS FOR CAUTION: The EFI score had a moderate performance in the prediction of the pregnancy rate. Indeed, the decrease in prediction error was rather small, as shown by the decrease in Brier score from 0.213 to 0.198, and low estimates for R² (13%) and C(τ) (0.629). GENERALIZABILITY TO OTHER POPULATIONS: As the EFI was validated externally in our own European population after initial testing by Adamson and Pasta (Endometriosis fertility index: the new, validated endometriosis staging system. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1609-1615) in an American population, it appears that the EFI can be used clinically to counsel infertile endometriosis patients receiving reproductive surgery in specialized centers about their post-operative conception options. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by funds obtained via the Clinical Research Fund of the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium, via the Ferring Chair in Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, and the Serono Chair in Reproductive Medicine granted to the Leuven University Fertility Center. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23462390     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  18 in total

1.  The association of clinical symptoms with deep infiltrating endometriosis: the importance of the preoperative clinical assessment.

Authors:  Pamela Stratton
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 2.  Bowel endometriosis: colorectal surgeon's perspective in a multidisciplinary surgical team.

Authors:  Albert M Wolthuis; Christel Meuleman; Carla Tomassetti; Thomas D'Hooghe; Anthony de Buck van Overstraeten; André D'Hoore
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Clinical management of endometriosis-associated infertility.

Authors:  Yin Mon Khine; Fuminori Taniguchi; Tasuku Harada
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2016-02-17

4.  Modified endometriosis fertility index is more accurate to predict the non-ART pregnancy rate following surgery: a cohort of Chinese women.

Authors:  Jiaying Fan; Kang Qin; Kuanrong Li; Xiaojun Li; Qingsheng Huang; Yunsheng Liao; Huiying Liang; Jingying Xie; Yan Yang; Qingfeng Li
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  What to choose and why to use - a critical review on the clinical relevance of rASRM, EFI and Enzian classifications of endometriosis.

Authors:  G Hudelist; L Valentin; E Saridogan; G Condous; M Malzoni; H Roman; D Jurkovic; J Keckstein
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2021-12

6.  Endometriosis fertility index score maybe more accurate for predicting the outcomes of in vitro fertilisation than r-AFS classification in women with endometriosis.

Authors:  Wenjun Wang; Ruiqi Li; Tingfeng Fang; Lili Huang; Nengyong Ouyang; Liangan Wang; Qingxue Zhang; Dongzi Yang
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 5.211

7.  Endometriosis Fertility Index for Predicting Pregnancy after Endometriosis Surgery.

Authors:  Xin Li; Cheng Zeng; Ying-Fang Zhou; Hui-Xia Yang; Jing Shang; Sai-Nan Zhu; Qing Xue
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2017-08-20       Impact factor: 2.628

8.  The Surgical Treatment of Severe Endometriosis Positively Affects the Chance of Natural or Assisted Pregnancy Postoperatively.

Authors:  Erin M Nesbitt-Hawes; Neil Campbell; Peta E Maley; Haryun Won; Dona Hooshmand; Amanda Henry; William Ledger; Jason A Abbott
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 9.  Models Predicting Success of Infertility Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alireza Zarinara; Hojjat Zeraati; Koorosh Kamali; Kazem Mohammad; Parisa Shahnazari; Mohammad Mehdi Akhondi
Journal:  J Reprod Infertil       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

10.  Effects of pelvic endometriosis and adenomyosis on ciliary beat frequency and muscular contractions in the human fallopian tube.

Authors:  Wei Xia; Duo Zhang; Jing Ouyang; Yan Liang; Huiyu Zhang; Zhen Huang; Guiling Liang; Qian Zhu; Xiaoming Guan; Jian Zhang
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 5.211

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.