What Do the Transcriptome and Proteome of Menstrual Blood-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Tell Us about Endometriosis?

Given the importance of menstrual blood in the pathogenesis of endometriosis and the multifunctional roles of menstrual mesenchymal stem cells (MenSCs) in regenerative medicine, this issue has gained prominence in the scientific community. Moreover, recent reviews highlight how robust the integrated assessment of omics data are for endometriosis. To our knowledge, no study has applied the multi-omics approaches to endometriosis MenSCs. This is a case-control study at a university-affiliated hospital. MenSCs transcriptome and proteome data were obtained by RNA-seq and UHPLC-MS/MS detection. Among the differentially expressed proteins and genes, we emphasize ATF3, ID1, ID3, FOSB, SNAI1, NR4A1, EGR1, LAMC3, and ZFP36 genes and MT2A, TYMP, COL1A1, COL6A2, and NID2 proteins that were already reported in the endometriosis. Our functional enrichment analysis reveals integrated modulating signaling pathways such as epithelial-mesenchymal transition (↑) and PI3K signaling via AKT to mTORC1 (↓ in proteome), mTORC1 signaling, TGF beta signaling, TNFA signaling via NFkB, IL6 STAT3 signaling, and response to hypoxia via HIF1A targets (↑ in transcriptome). Our findings highlight primary changes in the endometriosis MenSCs, suggesting that the chronic inflammatory endometrial microenvironment can modulate these cells, providing opportunities for endometriosis etiopathogenesis. Moreover, they identify challenges for future research leveraging knowledge for regenerative and precision medicine in endometriosis.

Identification of suitable reference genes for mesenchymal stem cells from menstrual blood of women with endometriosis.

It has been suggested that menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MenMSCs) are associated with the etiopathogenesis of endometriosis and considerable effort has been invested in searching for target genes and deciphering associated molecular pathways. However, reference gene stability for proper reproducible normalization in the analyses of the expression data validation is still unexplored in this experimental context. Therefore, in this exploratory study, we used stringent case and control selection criteria and collected menstrual blood from women with a laparoscopic diagnosis of advanced endometriosis and from fertile women without endometriosis. We tested for the first time the stability of 32 candidate reference genes to achieve increased accuracy and reliable results in the quantification of gene expression and direct future experiments using reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) in MenMSCs for endometriosis studies. Using the RefFinder web tool, we recommend the EIF2B1 and POP4 reference genes for the normalization of RT-qPCR data in study designs similar to ours. Furthermore, we suggest avoiding the commonly used GAPDH and ACTB reference genes as they are unstable. This high-visibility study is capable of directing different experimental designs as MenMSCs are derived from a minimally invasive tissue source with multifunctional roles in regenerative medicine.

Predictors of severe pain during insertion of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system among nulligravid women.

OBJECTIVE: To identify sociodemographic and clinical variables associated with severe pain with levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system (IUS) placement among nulligravid women. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that evaluated intracervical anesthesia before IUS insertion. We assessed factors associated with severe pain (visual analog scale pain score ≥7) immediately after insertion using bivariate and multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 137/300 (45.7%) subjects reported severe pain. In multiple regression analysis, only intracervical anesthesia [RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.80] and a history of dysmenorrhea [RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08-1.72)] were associated with severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: Among nulligravid women, a history of dysmenorrhea increases, and intracervical block decreases severe pain during levonorgestrel IUS insertion. IMPLICATIONS: Dysmenorrhea increases the risk of severe pain at levonorgestrel intrauterine system insertion, while receiving an intracervical lidocaine block decreases this risk. This information can be useful for counseling women prior to device placement and for selecting candidates who may particularly benefit from interventions to reduce pain.

Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain during the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives is a barrier to using these methods, especially for nulligravidas. An intracervical block may be easier and more reproducible than a paracervical block; however, this intervention has not been evaluated in nulligravid women to reduce pain with intrauterine contraceptive insertion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block reduces pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas; and, in addition, to assess whether the intracervical block has any effect on the ease of device insertion and on the overall experience with the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, nulligravidas were block-randomized to 1 of 3 arms prior to 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: 3.6-mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block, sham injection (intracervical dry-needling), or no intervention. The primary outcome was pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. Secondary outcomes were pain at tenaculum placement, ease of insertion (assessed by healthcare providers), and the overall experience with the procedure (pain with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion compared with expectations, discomfort level, wish to undergo another device insertion in the future, and recommendation of the procedure to others). Participants' pain was measured with a 10-cm visual analogue scale and a 5-point Faces Pain Scale. Pain was summarized into categories (none, mild, moderate, severe) and also analyzed as a continuous variable (mean and 95% confidence interval). Our sample size had 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect a 15% difference in pain score measured by visual analogue scale (mean [standard deviation] visual analogue scale score = 5.9 [2.0] cm) and an absolute difference of 20% in the proportion of women reporting severe pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among groups. We used a χ2 test and a mixed-effects linear regression model. We calculated the number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. RESULTS: A total of 302 women were randomized (99 to the intracervical block, 101 to the intracervical sham, and 102 to no intervention), and 300 had a successful device insertion. The intracervical block group had fewer women reporting severe pain than the other groups, both at tenaculum placement (intracervical block: 2% vs sham: 30.2% vs no intervention: 15.2%, P < .0001) and at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion (intracervical block: 26.5% vs sham: 59.4% vs no intervention: 50.5%, P < .0001). The mean (95% confidence interval) pain score reported at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was lower in the intracervical block group than in the other groups (intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs sham: 6.6 [6.2-7.0], P < .0001; intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs no intervention: 5.8 [5.3-6.4], P < .0001). Women from the intracervical block group reported less pain than expected (P < .0001), rated the insertion as less uncomfortable (P < .0001), and were more willing to undergo another device insertion in the future (P < .01) than women in the other groups. The ease of insertion were similar among groups. The number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was 2 and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: A 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block decreased pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas. It also provided a better overall experience during the procedure.

Social isolation in women with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perceptions of women with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain regarding their social ties. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken of women with chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis. Focus groups discussions among four to six participants were performed until saturation at the Clinics Hospital of Ribeirão Preto Medical School, Ribeirão Preto, southwest Brazil, between February 2013 and January 2014. Transcripts were analyzed according to the grounded theory approach and the emerging categories were coded using the WebQDA platform. RESULTS: Six focus group discussions took place, with a total of 29 patients. Social isolation was the main emerging theme. Social isolation was associated with a lack of understanding about endometriosis symptoms and with resignation in face of recurrent pain episodes. Avoiding partner intimacy and isolation from family and friends were components of social isolation. CONCLUSION: Women with endometriosis develop progressive social isolation after the onset of chronic pelvic pain. This finding is important for the multidisciplinary management of the disease.

Anaesthetic injection versus ischemic compression for the pain relief of abdominal wall trigger points in women with chronic pelvic pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain is a common condition among women, and 10 to 30 % of causes originate from the abdominal wall, and are associated with trigger points. Although little is known about their pathophysiology, variable methods have been practiced clinically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of local anaesthetic injections versus ischemic compression via physical therapy for pain relief of abdominal wall trigger points in women with chronic pelvic pain. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group randomized trial including 30 women with chronic pelvic pain with abdominal wall trigger points. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups. One group received an injection of 2 mL 0.5 % lidocaine without a vasoconstrictor into a trigger point. In the other group, ischemic compression via physical therapy was administered at the trigger points three times, with each session lasting for 60 s, and a rest period of 30 s between applications. Both treatments were administered during one weekly session for four weeks. Our primary outcomes were satisfactory clinical response rates and percentages of pain relief. Our secondary outcomes are pain threshold and tolerance at the trigger points. All subjects were evaluated at baseline and 1, 4, and 12 weeks after the interventions. The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital that was associated with a university providing assistance predominantly to working class women who were treated by the public health system. RESULTS: Clinical response rates and pain relief were significantly better at 1, 4, and 12 weeks for those receiving local anaesthetic injections than ischemic compression via physical therapy. The pain relief of women treated with local anaesthetic injections progressively improved at 1, 4, and 12 weeks after intervention. In contrast, women treated with ischemic compression did not show considerable changes in pain relief after intervention. In the local anaesthetic injection group, pain threshold and tolerance improved with time in the absence of significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine injection seems to be better for reducing the severity of chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal wall trigger points compared to ischemic compression via physical therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00628355. Date of registration: February 25, 2008.

Measures used to assess chronic pelvic pain in randomized controlled clinical trials: a systematic review.

RATIONALE: Many types of pain assessment are available to researchers carrying out clinical trials in chronic pelvic pain (CPP), ranging from a single-item scale to multidimensional inventories. AIM: Our objective was to investigate which assessments of pain are more commonly used in clinical trials on CPP. METHOD: We have reviewed articles published between 1991 and 2014. A total of 74 studies out of 1299 original research articles reviewed met the selection criteria by containing at least one method of pain assessment. The selected studies were classified according to the dimensions of pain evaluated, the type of scale and the descriptors used. RESULTS: The instruments most frequently used were single-item VAS and Biberoglu and Behrman pain score, while multidimensional inventories were used in few studies. The results of clinical studies in CPP are more frequently based on one-dimensional measurements. Valuable results from clinical studies in CPP might have been omitted because of incomplete outcome measurements. CONCLUSION: We believe the authors of clinical studies should report their results in a comprehensive way including in the outcomes of the measurement of one-dimensional and multidimensional pain characteristics.

Abdominal myofascial pain syndrome must be considered in the differential diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain.

Chronic pelvic pain is lower abdominal pain lasting at least 6 months, occurring continuously or intermittently and not associated exclusively with menstruation or intercourse. The involvement of the musculoskeletal system in chronic pelvic pain has been increasingly demonstrated. However, few studies exclusively examining abdominal myofascial pain syndrome as a cause of chronic pelvic pain in women are available. Therefore the objective of this manuscript is to describe the association between abdominal myofascial pain syndrome and chronic pelvic pain in women, and comment on methods for diagnosis and therapeutic options. There is evidence that the musculoskeletal system is compromised in some way in most women with chronic pelvic pain and that in 15% of these cases chronic pelvic pain is associated with abdominal myofascial pain syndrome but the scarcity of published data impairs the definition of protocols for the diagnosis and treatment of this disease. Abdominal myofascial pain syndrome is a highly prevalent disease associated with CPP, and because of this physicians should get used to make a precise and early diagnosis in order to avoid additional and unnecessary investigation.

Postural changes in women with chronic pelvic pain: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a lower abdominal pain lasting at least 6 months, occurring continuously or intermittently and not associated exclusively with menstruation or intercourse. Although the musculoskeletal system has been found to be involved in CPP, few studies have assessed the contribution of posture in women with CPP. We aimed to determine if the frequency of postural changes was higher in women with CPP than healthy subjects. METHODS: A case-control study included 108 women with CPP of more than 6 months' duration (CPP group) who consecutively attended at the Hospital of the University of São Paulo and 48 healthy female volunteers (control group). Postural assessment was noninvasive and performed in the standing position, with the reference points of Kendall used as normal parameters. Factors associated with CPP were assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Logistic regression showed that the independent factors associated with CPP were postural changes in the cervical spine (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.6-10.7; p < 0.01) and scapulae (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.1-7.6; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Musculoskeletal changes were associated with CPP in 34% of women. These findings suggest that a more detailed assessment of women with CPP is necessary for better diagnosis and for more effective treatment.

Expression of p63 differs in peritoneal endometriosis, endometriomas, adenomyosis, rectovaginal septum endometriosis, and abdominal wall endometriosis.

CONTEXT: Although there is evidence that endometriosis results from basal endometrium dislocation, the underlying biology is not fully understood. One protein that plays an important role in regulating epithelial proliferation and differentiation is the 63-kDa membrane protein (p63), which is also a marker of basal and reserve cells in the female genital tract. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether p63 is expressed differently in peritoneal endometriosis, endometriomas, and adenomyosis, as well as in deep endometriotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum and abdominal wall. DESIGN: This study includes a prospective series of consecutive patients (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) from a tertiary care university hospital. Specimens collected from 83 patients (15 peritoneal endometriosis specimens, 22 endometrioma specimens, 36 adenomyosis specimens, and 10 rectovaginal septum/abdominal wall specimens) were evaluated. Diagnostic and operative laparoscopies or laparotomies were performed, and tissue samples were obtained. Immunohistochemistry was used to evaluate p63 expression. RESULTS: Positivity for p63 was detected in 93.3% of the peritoneal endometriosis specimens, 81.8% of the endometrioma specimens, 36.1% of the adenomyosis specimens, and none of the rectovaginal/abdominal wall endometriosis specimens (P < .001). Distribution of p63 immunostaining in the positive specimens was homogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Endometriotic lesions express p63 differently, and some retain the basal/reserve cell immunophenotype. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the lack of p63 expression in some lesions is related to the extent of the disease, to its clinical behavior, or to exacerbation of the accompanying symptoms.