Towards comprehensive management of symptomatic endometriosis: beyond the dichotomy of medical versus surgical treatment.

Except when surgery is the only option because of organ damage, the presence of suspicious lesions, or the desire to conceive, women with endometriosis-associated pain often face a choice between medical and surgical treatment. In theory, the description of the potential benefits and potential harms of the two alternatives should be standardized, unbiased, and based on strong evidence, enabling the patient to make an informed decision. However, doctor's opinion, intellectual competing interests, local availability of specific services and (mis)information obtained from social media, and online support groups can influence the type of advice given and affect patients' choices. This is compounded by the paucity of robust data from randomized controlled trials, and the anxiety of distressed women who are eager to do anything to alleviate their disabling symptoms. Vulnerable patients are more likely to accept the suggestions of their healthcare provider, which can lead to unbalanced and physician-centred decisions, whether in favour of either medical or surgical treatment. In general, treatments should be symptom-orientated rather than lesion-orientated. Medical and surgical modalities appear to be similarly effective in reducing pain symptoms, with medications generally more successful for severe dysmenorrhoea and surgery more successful for severe deep dyspareunia caused by fibrotic lesions infiltrating the posterior compartment. Oestrogen-progestogen combinations and progestogen monotherapies are generally safe and well tolerated, provided there are no major contraindications. About three-quarters of patients with superficial peritoneal and ovarian endometriosis and two-thirds of those with infiltrating fibrotic lesions are ultimately satisfied with their medical treatment although the remainder may experience side effects, which may result in non-compliance. Surgery for superficial and ovarian endometriosis is usually safe. When fibrotic infiltrating lesions are present, morbidity varies greatly depending on the skill of the individual surgeon, the need for advanced procedures, such as bowel resection and ureteral reimplantation, and the availability of expert colorectal surgeons and urologists working together in a multidisciplinary approach. The generalizability of published results is adequate for medical treatment but very limited for surgery. Moreover, on the one hand, hormonal drugs induce disease remission but do not cure endometriosis, and symptom relapse is expected when the drugs are discontinued; on the other hand, the same drugs should be used after lesion excision, which also does not cure endometriosis, to prevent an overall cumulative symptom and lesion recurrence rate of 10% per postoperative year. Therefore, the real choice may not be between medical treatment and surgery, but between medical treatment alone and surgery plus postoperative medical treatment. The experience of pain in women with endometriosis is a complex phenomenon that is not exclusively based on nociception, although the role of peripheral and central sensitization is not fully understood. In addition, trauma, and especially sexual trauma, and pelvic floor disorders can cause or contribute to symptoms in many individuals with chronic pelvic pain, and healthcare providers should never take for granted that diagnosed or suspected endometriosis is always the real, or the sole, origin of the referred complaints. Alternative treatment modalities are available that can help address most of the additional causes contributing to symptoms. Pain management in women with endometriosis may be more than a choice between medical and surgical treatment and may require comprehensive care by a multidisciplinary team including psychologists, sexologists, physiotherapists, dieticians, and pain therapists. An often missing factor in successful treatment is empathy on the part of healthcare providers. Being heard and understood, receiving simple and clear explanations and honest communication about uncertainties, being invited to share medical decisions after receiving detailed and impartial information, and being reassured that a team member will be available should a major problem arise, can greatly increase trust in doctors and transform a lonely and frustrating experience into a guided and supported journey, during which coping with this chronic disease is gradually learned and eventually accepted. Within this broader scenario, patient-centred medicine is the priority, and whether or when to resort to surgery or choose the medical option remains the prerogative of each individual woman.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Oral GnRH Antagonists in Combination with Estradiol and Norethindrone Acetate for Pain Relief Associated with Endometriosis: A Review of Evidence of a Novel Class of Hormonal Agents.

Current medical treatment options for endometriosis associated pains are inadequate. Evidence on effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is scarce. Around one third of patients are not responsive to oral contraceptives or progestins due to progesterone resistance. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists can only be used for a short duration because of associated side effects. Oral GnRH antagonists, including elagolix, relugolix, and linzagolix allow oral administration, induce dose dependent reduction of estradiol levels, do not cause initial flare up of endometriosis symptoms, and allow the fast return of ovarian function and menstruation after discontinuation. Elagolix at a low dose of 150 mg once daily, or the higher dose of 200 mg twice daily, significantly increased the proportion of women achieving clinically meaningful decline of dysmenorrhea, noncyclic pelvic pain, and dyspareunia. Relugolix at an oral dose of 40 mg/day results in improvement in different forms of endometriosis related pelvic pain, with an efficacy and side effect profile similar to that of GnRH agonists. Adding 1 mg of estradiol and 0.5 mg of norethindrone to 40 mg of relugolix (relugolix combination therapy) allows extension of treatment to 24 weeks with maintained efficacy and an improved side effect profile. Linzagolix, in a dose of 75 mg/day, can be used alone to treat endometriosis associated pain. For severe pelvic pain and dyspareunia, linzagolix can be used in a high dose of 200 mg/day with hormonal add-back therapy to preserve bone health.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Intractable Visceral Pain Originating from the Pelvic and Abdominal Region: A Narrative Review on a Possible New Indication for Patients with Therapy-Resistant Pain.

Aim: Visceral pain, characterized by pain that is diffuse and challenging to localize, occurs frequently and is difficult to treat. In cases where the pain becomes intractable despite optimal medical management, it can affect patients' Quality of Life (QoL). Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a potential solution for intractable visceral pain. Purpose: In this narrative review, we collected all evidence regarding the efficacy of SCS for visceral pain across various underlying conditions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science in which articles published from October 1st, 1963 up to March 7th, 2023 were identified. Results: Seventy articles were included in this review of which most were retrospective cohort studies, case series and case reports. The studies, often with a small number of participants, reported on SCS for chronic pancreatitis, anorectal pain and bowel disorders, gynaecological diagnoses, visceral pelvic pain, urological disorders and finally general visceral pain. They found positive effects on pain and/or symptom relief, opioid consumption, anxiety and depression and QoL. Complications occurred frequently but were often minor and reversible. Conclusion: Better screening and selection criteria need to be established to optimally evaluate eligible patients who might benefit from SCS. A positive outcome of a sympathetic nerve block appears to be a potential indicator of SCS effectiveness. Additionally, women receiving SCS for endometriosis had a better outcome compared to other indications. Finally, SCS could also relief functional symptoms such as voiding problems and gastroparesis. Complications could often be resolved with revision surgery. Since SCS is expensive and not always covered by standard health insurance, the incorporation of cost-analyses is recommended. In order to establish a comprehensive treatment plan, including selection criteria for SCS, rigorous prospective, possibly randomized and controlled studies that are diagnosis-oriented, with substantial follow-up and adequate sample sizes, are needed.

Recurrence after surgery for endometrioma: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

IMPORTANCE: Endometriosis is an inflammatory disease, with different forms of expression and a variety of complaints. An endometrioma, an ovarian cyst with endometrium-like lining, is one of the most common expressions of abdominal endometriosis. These endometriomas can, in addition to medical treatment, be treated surgically. After surgery, hormonal therapy is still frequently used, for treatment of endometriosis in general and prevention of recurrence of endometriomas specifically. However, not all women want or can receive postoperative hormonal treatment. It is important for this group to know the risk of anatomical recurrence of ovarian endometrioma after surgery for an endometrioma. OBJECTIVE: To determine the recurrence rate for surgically treated endometrioma, without postoperative hormonal treatment. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analyses, according to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until May 2023. The literature search was limited to women with endometrioma who received surgical treatment without postoperative hormonal treatment. STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS: A distinction was made in study design including randomised controlled trials, cohort and retrospective studies. For assessment of risk of bias, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of interventions assessment tool were used. MAIN OUTCOMES: Outcome measure included in this review is endometrioma recurrence. RESULTS: We screened 5367 articles, of which ninety-seven articles were systematically reviewed and fifty-five included in this systematic review. Twelve of these were randomised controlled trials, eleven prospective cohort studies, and thirty-two retrospective studies. Nine randomised controlled trials (RCT's) were assigned as low risk of bias. For non-RCT's, only three studies had low risk of bias. Data of twenty-three studies were pooled in meta-analyses, performed for follow-up periods of 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. These studies showed a recurrence rate of 4%, 14%, 17% and 27% respectively. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis, at 24 months after surgery the endometrioma recurrence rate showed a weighted average up to 27%. RELEVANCE: With this study, we aimed to determine the recurrence rate of endometrioma after surgical treatment in women without postoperative hormonal treatment use. Recurrence rates were up to 27%.

A gluten-free diet for endometriosis patients lacks evidence to recommend it.

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent chronic disease characterized by the presence of endometriumlike tissue outside the uterus and is often associated with symptoms, such as dysmenorrhea, dysuria, dyschezia, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility. Moreover, women diagnosed with endometriosis can report gastrointestinal symptoms, including bloating, constipation or diarrhea, and abdominal cramping, which can be associated with irritable bowel syndrome and can result in the misdiagnosis of endometriosis as irritable bowel syndrome at first. Treatment usually involves hormonal therapy, pain management, surgery, and/or assisted reproductive techniques in case of infertility. Nonetheless, these treatment methods can be insufficient for alleviating symptoms or can have unacceptable side effects, leading to noncompliance. Therefore, women often apply self-management strategies, including dietary interventions. One of the diets frequently suggested as a tool to manage endometriosis-related symptoms on social media and patient forums is a gluten-free diet. Although a gluten-free diet has been proven effective in managing nonceliac wheat sensitivity or celiac disease, its effectiveness in endometriosis remains uncertain. The Nurses' Health Study II found it unlikely that gluten intake was a strong factor in endometriosis etiology and symptomatology. To the best of our knowledge, the most frequently cited and sole published intervention study on the efficacy of a gluten-free diet for endometriosis has several important limiting factors, including the absence of a control group. In addition, gluten consumption is highly susceptible to a placebo effect and a nocebo effect, where women might experience symptom relief after eliminating gluten and return of symptoms after they consume gluten again, solely because they believe that gluten is bad for them. Despite the inverse association between body mass index and endometriosis and between a gluten-free diet and increased body mass index, this is an association, and no causality was proven. In addition, other factors should be taken into consideration. Of note, a gluten-free diet is expensive, has limited availability, and has a significant effect on quality of life. Moreover, without proper dietary guidance, it may adversely affect the gastrointestinal microbiome. Therefore, scientifically substantiated advice regarding the use of a gluten-free diet for endometriosis-related symptoms is currently not available, and a gluten-free diet should be discouraged unless there is an additional diagnosis of nonceliac wheat sensitivity or celiac disease.

Preterm birth and uterine fibroid necrosis: The clinical presentation illustrated in a case series.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine fibroids increase the risk of preterm birth. The current study highlights uterine fibroid necrosis as a possible cause of (extreme) preterm birth. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study in one Dutch academic hospital. Cases were selected from the 526 participants of the MyoFert study (Netherlands Trial Register, NL7990), which included patients who presented between 2004 and 2018 and were between the age of 18 and 45 years at the time of diagnosis of uterine fibroids. Of these participants, 414 women became pregnant. A retrospective chart review of the first pregnancies was performed. The main outcomes were (imminent) preterm birth and signs of fibroid necrosis on ultrasound. In women with signs of fibroid necrosis, the following data were collected systematically: fibroid characteristics, clinical presentation, pregnancy outcome, and postpartum period. RESULTS: In total, 66 women had a preterm birth (16 %, 66/414), of which 25 pregnancies ended between 16 and <24 weeks (38 %, 25/66) and 41 pregnancies ended between 24 and <37 weeks of gestation (62 %, 41/66). Of all women with preterm birth and available ultrasound images, 15 % (7/48) had fibroid necrosis at the time of labour. These seven patients, supplemented with three patients with fibroid necrosis during their first pregnancy and at least one episode of imminent preterm birth, are described in more detail. In these ten patients, the fibroids increased substantially in size during the first and second trimester, leading to severe abdominal pain in all patients and hospital admission in seven patients. Ultrasound examination of the fibroids showed heterogenic changes and focal transonic areas in the fibroid, which are characteristics that indicate fibroid necrosis. In four patients, myomectomy was performed and necrosis was confirmed histologically. CONCLUSION: Fibroid necrosis during pregnancy is likely associated with (imminent) preterm birth. Clinicians are advised to structurally evaluate the myometrium in pregnancy, specifically in women presenting with abdominal pain in the second trimester.