Uri P Dior1, Debbie Nisbet2, Jenny N Fung3, Grant Foster4, Martin Healey5, Grant W Montgomery3, Peter A W Rogers6, Sarah J Holdsworth-Carson6, Jane E Girling6. 1. Gynaecology 2 Unit (Drs. Dior and Healey). Electronic address: uri.dior@gmail.com. 2. and Pauline Gandel Imaging Centre (Drs. Nisbet and Foster), The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia; Department of Medicine and Radiology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (Dr. Nisbet). 3. Institute of Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia (Drs. Fung and Montgomery). 4. and Pauline Gandel Imaging Centre (Drs. Nisbet and Foster), The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia. 5. Gynaecology 2 Unit (Drs. Dior and Healey). 6. Gynaecology Research Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne and Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia (Drs. Rogers, Holdsworth-Carson, and Girling).
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence of sonographic evidence of adenomyosis (SEOA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for the investigation of endometriosis and to assess if there is an association between SEOA and endometriosis severity. Using gene expression analysis, we also aimed to determine if gene expression in eutopic endometria differed in patients with and without adenomyosis. DESIGN: A prospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: A tertiary medical center. PATIENTS: Reproductive-age women who underwent laparoscopic surgery after presenting to a pelvic pain-focused gynecology clinic. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial tissue, detailed patient questionnaires, pathology, and surgical notes were collected. Sonographic data from tertiary ultrasounds performed up to 12 months before surgery were retrospectively added (n = 234, researchers blinded to surgical and pathological findings). Gene array data from endometrial biopsies (n = 41) were used to analyze differential gene expression; patients were divided into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of SEOA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 588 patients recruited, 234 (40%) had an available pelvic scan and were included in this study. The average age of the included women was 30.6 years, with 35% having SEOA. Patients with SEOA were 5.4 years older (p = .02). There was no significant difference in the rates of endometriosis between groups; however, patients with SEOA were more likely to have stage IV endometriosis (41% vs 9.8%, p <.001). Patients with SEOA were also more likely to have other markers of severe endometriosis such as endometriomas and deep infiltrating endometriosis (p <.001). No significant difference was observed in endometrial gene expression between adenomyosis cases and controls after adjusting for menstrual c`ycle phases and the presence/absence of endometriosis. CONCLUSION: Sonographic features of adenomyosis may be included as a component of the clinical assessment when attempting to predict the presence of severe endometriosis. No differences in gene expression were observed. Further research is needed to characterize uterine adenomyosis and to explore molecular pathways involved in its pathogenesis.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence of sonographic evidence of adenomyosis (SEOA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for the investigation of endometriosis and to assess if there is an association between SEOA and endometriosis severity. Using gene expression analysis, we also aimed to determine if gene expression in eutopic endometria differed in patients with and without adenomyosis. DESIGN: A prospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: A tertiary medical center. PATIENTS: Reproductive-age women who underwent laparoscopic surgery after presenting to a pelvic pain-focused gynecology clinic. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial tissue, detailed patient questionnaires, pathology, and surgical notes were collected. Sonographic data from tertiary ultrasounds performed up to 12 months before surgery were retrospectively added (n = 234, researchers blinded to surgical and pathological findings). Gene array data from endometrial biopsies (n = 41) were used to analyze differential gene expression; patients were divided into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of SEOA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 588 patients recruited, 234 (40%) had an available pelvic scan and were included in this study. The average age of the included women was 30.6 years, with 35% having SEOA. Patients with SEOA were 5.4 years older (p = .02). There was no significant difference in the rates of endometriosis between groups; however, patients with SEOA were more likely to have stage IV endometriosis (41% vs 9.8%, p <.001). Patients with SEOA were also more likely to have other markers of severe endometriosis such as endometriomas and deep infiltrating endometriosis (p <.001). No significant difference was observed in endometrial gene expression between adenomyosis cases and controls after adjusting for menstrual c`ycle phases and the presence/absence of endometriosis. CONCLUSION: Sonographic features of adenomyosis may be included as a component of the clinical assessment when attempting to predict the presence of severe endometriosis. No differences in gene expression were observed. Further research is needed to characterize uterine adenomyosis and to explore molecular pathways involved in its pathogenesis.