Müllerian anomalies and endometriosis as potential explanatory models for the retrograde menstruation/implantation and the embryonic remnants/celomic metaplasia pathogenic theories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometriosis prevalence differ in patients with obstructive Müllerian anomalies (OMA) versus those with nonobstructive Müllerian anomalies (NOMA), and in patients with NOMA versus those without Müllerian anomalies? SUMMARY ANSWER: The quantitative synthesis of published data demonstrates a substantially increased prevalence of endometriosis in patients with OMA compared with those with NOMA, and a similar prevalence in patients with NOMA and those without Müllerian anomalies. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The pathogenesis of endometriosis has not been definitively clarified yet. A higher prevalence of endometriosis in patients with OMA than in those with NOMA would support the retrograde menstruation (RM)/implantation theory, whereas a higher prevalence of endometriosis in the NOMA group than in the group without Müllerian anomalies would support the embryonic remnants/celomic metaplasia hypothesis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This systematic review with meta-analysis was restricted to full-length, English-language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 1980 and 2023. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using the keyword 'endometriosis' in combination with 'Müllerian anomalies', 'obstructive Müllerian anomalies', 'female genital malformations', 'retrograde menstruation', 'infertility', 'pelvic pain', and 'classification'. References from relevant publications were screened, and PubMed's 'similar articles' and 'cited by' functions were used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Studies were selected if they reported the prevalence of surgically confirmed endometriosis in either individuals with OMA compared to those with NOMA, or patients with NOMA compared to those without Müllerian anomalies. Cohort and case-control studies and case series were deemed eligible for inclusion. Noncomparative studies, studies not reporting both the number of individuals with endometriosis and the total number of those with Müllerian anomalies or with other gynecological conditions, those including exclusively data on patients with absent or uncertain menstrual function (e.g. complete Müllerian agenesis category), or with imperforate hymen were excluded. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. The risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposures tool. The overall certainty of the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Seven retrospective studies were included. The overall mean estimate of endometriosis prevalence was 47% (95% CI, 36-58%) in patients with OMA, and 19% (95% CI, 15-24%) in patients with NOMA, with a common odds ratio (OR) of 4.72 (95% CI, 2.54-8.77). The overall mean estimate of endometriosis prevalence in patients with NOMA was 23% (95% CI, 20-27%), and that in patients without Müllerian anomalies was 21% (95% CI, 20-22%), with a common OR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.57-1.58). The overall certainty of the evidence according to GRADE guidelines was judged as low for both comparisons. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: Some NOMA subtypes may create a partial obstacle to menstrual efflux and/or generate dysfunctional myometrial contractions that favor transtubal reflux, thus increasing the risk of endometriosis and limiting the difference between OMA and NOMA. As infertility and pelvic pain are strongly associated with endometriosis, women with these symptoms are inappropriate controls. Confounding by indication could explain the lack of difference in endometriosis prevalence between patients with NOMA and those without Müllerian anomalies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this meta-analysis support the validity of the RM theory but do not definitively rule out alternative hypotheses. Thus, RM may be considered the initiator for the development of endometriotic lesions, while not excluding the contribution of both inheritable and tissue-specific genetic and epigenetic modifications as disease-promoting factors. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was received for this review. P.Ve. is a member of the Editorial Board of Human Reproduction Open, the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, and the International Editorial Board of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica; has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for chapters on endometriosis management in the clinical decision support resource UpToDate; and maintains both a public and private gynecological practice. E.S. discloses payments from Ferring for research grants and honoraria from Merck-Serono for lectures. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Potential anatomical determinants of retrograde menstruation: a comprehensive narrative review.

A century ago, Sampson identified three uterine anatomical structures that may determine the amount of retrograde menstruation and the likelihood of the development of endometriosis: the cervix, the intramural portion of the fallopian tubes, and the myometrium. Critical appraisal was undertaken of data published over the last 40 years on the potential effect of the characteristics of these three anatomical variables on the risk of endometriosis. There is some evidence to support the pathogenic role of the diameter of the cervical canal, stenosis of internal or external orifices, and stiffness of cervical tissue. One study showed a significant association between the morphology of the intramural tubal tract and the frequency of endometriosis. A large body of evidence points to abnormalities of the myometrial structure as the anatomical aberration most consistently associated with endometriosis. These abnormalities have largely been interpreted as signs of early-onset adenomyosis, which may precede endometriosis and even lead to its development by increasing the amount of retrograde menstruation. Future research should aim to verify whether a positive relationship exists between the substantially increased number of ovulatory menses occurring in the decade following menarche, the development of anatomical myometrial abnormalities, changes in the amount of retrograde menstruation over time, and the risk of endometriosis.

Non-response to first-line hormonal treatment for symptomatic endometriosis: overcoming tunnel vision. A narrative review.

One-fourth to one-third of women with endometriosis receiving first-line hormonal treatment lacks an adequate response in terms of resolution of painful symptoms. This phenomenon has been ascribed to "progesterone resistance", an entity that was theorized to explain the gap between the ubiquity of retrograde menstruation and the 10% prevalence of endometriosis among women of reproductive age.Nevertheless, the hypothesis of progesterone resistance is not free of controversies. As our understanding of endometriosis is increasing, authors are starting to set aside the traditionally accepted tunnel vision of endometriosis as a strictly pelvic disease, opening to a more comprehensive perspective of the condition. The question is: are patients not responding to first-line treatment because they have an altered signaling pathway for such treatment, or have we been overlooking a series of other pain contributors which may not be resolved by hormonal therapy?Finding an answer to this question is evermore impelling, for two reasons mainly. Firstly, because not recognizing the presence of further pain contributors adds a delay in treatment to the already existing delay in diagnosis of endometriosis. This may lead to chronicity of the untreated pain contributors as well as causing adverse consequences on quality of life and psychological health. Secondly, misinterpreting the consequences of untreated pain contributors as a non-response to standard first-line treatment may imply the adoption of second-line medical therapies or of surgery, which may entail non-negligible side effects and may not be free of physical, psychological and socioeconomic repercussions.The current narrative review aims at providing an overview of all the possible pain contributors in endometriosis, ranging from those strictly organic to those with a greater neuro-psychological component. Including these aspects in a broader psychobiological approach may provide useful suggestions for treating those patients who report persistent pain symptoms despite receiving first-line hormonal medical treatment.

Is retrograde menstruation a universal, recurrent, physiological phenomenon? A systematic review of the evidence in humans and non-human primates.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the quantitative, qualitative, and temporal patterns of retrograde mentruation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The extreme quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity of the available studies prevents the definitive conclusion that retrograde menstruation is a universal and consistent phenomenon during the reproductive period. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Retrograde menstruation has been defined as a universal, physiological phenomenon that occurs similarly in about 90% of menstruators during the reproductive period. However, uncertainties still exist in terms of the event frequency, total amount, and cellular composition of retrograde menstruation and the differences between individuals with versus those without endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Two systematic reviews were performed, one for human studies, and one for non-human primate studies. We retrieved studies from the PubMed and Embase databases published between 1 January 1980 and 1 November 2023. Studies published in the English language were included and identified using a combination of MeSH terms. References from relevant publications were systematically screened and further articles were identified using PubMed's 'similar articles' and 'cited by' functions. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that did not report original data or provided a review of the field were excluded. Bias analysis was completed for each included human study by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Fifteen studies were finally included in the human systematic review, mostly with limited sample sizes. The macroscopic visualization of blood in PF during menses was reported with a frequency ranging from 9% to 100%. A prevalence of endometrial cells detected in peritoneal fluid ranging from 8% to 75% was reported in the various studies. Controversial findings were reported in relation to patients with endometriosis. Retrograde menstruation has been evaluated cross-sectionally on single occasions, and no information is available on the course of the phenomenon within an entire cycle and between subsequent cycles. Two studies were included in the non-human primate systematic review; one of them showed that retrograde menstruation was observed more frequently in baboons with naturally occurring endometriosis (83%) than in those with a normal pelvis (51%). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: In humans, peritoneal fluid has often been collected at different cycle phases and not systematically during menstruation. The indication for laparoscopy was not always clear for all participants. A wide variety of methods were used to detect endometrial cells, including cytological staining, cell block analysis, immunocytochemistry, and various methods of cell culture. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: The idea that almost all women experience retrograde menstruation regularly and similarly during their reproductive life is currently unsubstantiated. It is an academic notion accepted uncritically. Development of endometriosis may derive from differences in the frequency or severity of the event. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The review was partially funded by Italian Ministry of Health-Current Research IRCCS. P.Vi. serves as co-editor in Chief of Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders. E.S. serves as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open and discloses research grants from Ferring, Ibsa, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex, and honoraria from Ibsa and Gedeon Richter. P.Ve. serves as Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open; is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, of the Italian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and of the International Editorial Board of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica; has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for chapters on endometriosis management in the clinical decision support resource UpToDate; and maintains both a public and private gynecological practice. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.