Two-year efficacy and safety of relugolix combination therapy in women with endometriosis-associated pain: SPIRIT open-label extension study.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the efficacy and safety of long-term treatment (up to 2 years) with relugolix combination therapy (CT) in women with moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain? SUMMARY ANSWER: For up to 2 years, treatment with relugolix CT improved menstrual and non-menstrual pain, dyspareunia, and function in women with endometriosis; after an initial decline of <1%, the mean bone mineral density (BMD) remained stable with continued treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometriosis is a chronic condition characterized by symptoms of dysmenorrhea, non-menstrual pelvic pain (NMPP), and dyspareunia, which have a substantial impact on the lives of affected women, their partners, and families. SPIRIT 1 and 2 were phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of once-daily relugolix CT (relugolix 40 mg, oestradiol 1 mg, norethisterone acetate 0.5 mg) in premenopausal women (age 18-50 years) with endometriosis and moderate-to-severe dysmenorrhea and NMPP. These trials demonstrated a significant improvement of dysmenorrhea, NMPP, and dyspareunia in women treated with relugolix CT, with minimal decline (<1%) in BMD versus placebo at 24 weeks. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Patients participating in this open-label, single-arm, long-term extension (LTE) study of the 24-week SPIRIT pivotal studies (SPIRIT 1 and 2) received up to an additional 80 weeks of once-daily oral relugolix CT treatment between May 2018 and January 2023. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Premenopausal women with confirmed endometriosis and moderate to severe dysmenorrhea and NMPP who completed the 24-week pivotal studies (SPIRIT 1 and 2 trials; Giudice et al., 2022) and who met all entry criteria were eligible to enrol. Two-year results were analysed by treatment group based on original randomization in pivotal studies: relugolix CT, delayed relugolix CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy for 12 weeks, followed by relugolix CT), or placebo→relugolix CT (placebo for 24 weeks followed by relugolix CT). The primary endpoints of the LTE study were the proportion of dysmenorrhea and NMPP responders at Week 52 and Week 104/end-of-treatment (EOT). A responder was a participant who achieved a predefined, clinically meaningful reduction from baseline in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable) for the specific pain type with no increase in analgesic use. The predefined clinically meaningful threshold for dysmenorrhea was 2.8 points and for NMPP was 2.1 points. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) pain domain scores, a measure of the effects of endometriosis-associated pain on daily activities (function), NRS scores for dysmenorrhea, NMPP, dyspareunia, and overall pelvic pain, and analgesic/opioid use. Safety endpoints included adverse events and changes in BMD. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 1261 randomized patients, 1044 completed the pivotal studies, 802 enrolled in the LTE, 681 completed 52 weeks of treatment, and 501 completed 104 weeks of treatment. Demographics and baseline characteristics of the extension population were consistent with those of the original randomized population. Among patients randomized to relugolix CT at pivotal study baseline who continued in the LTE (N = 277), sustained improvements in endometriosis-associated pain were demonstrated through 104 weeks. The proportion of responders at Week 104/EOT for dysmenorrhea and NMPP was 84.8% and 75.8%, respectively. Decreases in dyspareunia and improvement in function assessed by EHP-30 pain domain were also sustained over 2 years. At Week 104/EOT, 91% of patients were opioid-free and 75% of patients were analgesic-free. Relugolix CT over 104 weeks was well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with that observed over the first 24 weeks. After initial least squares mean BMD loss <1% at Week 24, BMD plateaued at Week 36 and was sustained for the duration of 104 weeks of treatment. Efficacy and safety results were generally consistent in women in the placebo→relugolix CT and delayed relugolix CT groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was conducted as an open-label study without a control group over the 80 weeks of the extension period. Of the 802 patients who were enrolled in this LTE study, 681 patients (84.9%) and 501 patients (62.5%) of patients completed 52 and 104 weeks of treatment, respectively. In addition, there currently are no comparative data to other hormonal medications. Finally, a third (37.4%) of the study population terminated participation early. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In conclusion, relugolix CT offers an additional option to help address an important unmet clinical need for effective, safe, and well-tolerated medical treatments for endometriosis that can be used longer-term, reducing the need for opioids and improving quality of life. The findings from this study may help support the care of women with endometriosis seeking longer-term effective medical management of their symptoms. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by Myovant Sciences GmbH (now Sumitomo Pharma Switzerland GmbH). C.M.B. reports fees from Myovant, grants from Bayer Healthcare, fees from ObsEva, and Chair of ESHRE Endometriosis Guideline Group (all funds went to the University of Oxford); N.P.J. reports personal fees from Myovant Sciences, during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from Organon, personal fees from Roche Diagnostics; S.A.-S. reports personal fees from Myovant Sciences, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from UpToDate; J.S.P., and R.B.W. are employees and shareholders of Myovant Sciences; J.C.A.F. and S.J.I. are shareholders of Myovant Sciences (but at time of publicaion are no longer employess of Myovant Sciences); M.S.A. and K.W. have no conflicts to declare; V.M. is a consultant to Myovant; L.C.G. reports personal fees from Myovant Sciences, Inc and Bayer. The authors did not receive compensation for manuscript writing, review, and revision. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03654274.

A Plain Language Summary to learn about relugolix combination therapy for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of research studies (known as clinical trials) called SPIRIT 1 and SPIRIT 2. The SPIRIT 1 and SPIRIT 2 studies compared how well a medicine called relugolix combination therapy worked in relieving pain in women with moderate to severe endometriosis compared to a placebo, a pill with no active medication. Endometriosis occurs when tissue similar to what normally lines the uterus grows in other places, such as the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and bowels. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers looked at 1261 adult women with moderate to severe endometriosis. Randomly, 420 (33%) of these women were assigned to relugolix combination therapy, 420 (33%) were assigned to delayed relugolix combination therapy (relugolix alone first and then relugolix combination therapy for the remainder of the study), and 421 (33%) were assigned to placebo. The SPIRIT 1 and SPIRIT 2 studies showed that more women taking relugolix combination therapy (75% from SPIRIT 1 and 75% from SPIRIT 2) for 24 weeks had both less pelvic or groin pain during menstrual periods from endometriosis and no need for more pain medicines than women who took placebo (27% from SPIRIT 1 and 30% from SPIRIT 2). The SPIRIT 1 and SPIRIT 2 studies also showed that more women taking relugolix combination therapy (59% from SPIRIT 1 and 66% from SPIRIT 2) for 24 weeks had both less pelvic or groin pain between menstrual periods from endometriosis and no need for more pain medicines than women who took placebo (40% from SPIRIT 1 and 43% from SPIRIT 2). Women taking relugolix combination therapy had less pelvic or groin pain during and between menstrual periods within 4 weeks of starting the medicine. The most common side effects were headaches, the common cold, and hot flushes or feeling hot among women taking relugolix combination therapy, delayed relugolix combination therapy, and placebo. Relugolix combination therapy was considered safe for those with no major medical problems. Women taking relugolix combination therapy had little to no loss of bone mineral density (a way of knowing how strong bones are) after 24 weeks of treatment. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THESE STUDIES TELL US?: Women with moderate to severe endometriosis taking relugolix combination therapy had much less pain from endometriosis than women taking placebo. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03204318 (SPIRIT-1); NCT03204331 (SPIRIT-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The impact of prolonged, maternal iodine exposure in early gestation on neonatal thyroid function.

Context: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) using oil-soluble contrast medium (OSCM) improves pregnancy rates but results in severe and persistent iodine excess, potentially impacting the fetus and neonate. Objective: To determine the incidence of thyroid dysfunction in newborns conceived within six months of OSCM HSG. Design: Offspring study of a prospective cohort of women who underwent OSCM HSG. Setting: Auckland region, New Zealand (2020-2022). Participants: Offspring from the SELFI (Safety and Efficacy of Lipiodol in Fertility Investigations) study cohort (n=57). Measurements: All newborns had a dried blood spot card for TSH measurement 48 hours after birth as part of New Zealand's Newborn Metabolic Screening Programme. Forty-one neonates also had a heel prick serum sample at one week to measure thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free thyroxine (FT4), and free triiodothyronine (FT3). Maternal urine iodine concentration (UIC) and TSH in the six months after OSCM HSG were retrieved from the SELFI study for analyses. Primary outcome: Incidence of hypothyroidism in the neonatal period. Results: There was no evidence of primary hypothyroidism on newborn screening (TSH 2-10 mIU/L). All neonates tested at one week had normal serum TSH, FT4, and FT3 levels. However, increasing maternal peak UIC levels during pregnancy were associated with lower TSH levels (p= 0.006), although also associated with lower FT4 levels (p=0.032). Conclusions: While pre-conceptional OSCM HSG in women did not result in neonatal hypothyroidism, gestational iodine excess was associated with a paradoxical lowering of neonatal TSH levels despite lower FT4 levels. These changes likely reflect alterations in deiodinase activity in the fetal hypothalamic-pituitary axis from iodine excess. Trial registration: https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12620000738921, identifier 12620000738921.

The SELFI Study: Iodine Excess and Thyroid Dysfunction in Women Undergoing Oil-Soluble Contrast Hysterosalpingography.

CONTEXT: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-soluble contrast medium (OSCM) improves pregnancy rates. However, OSCM has high iodine content and long half-life, leading to potential iodine excess. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to determine the pattern of iodine excess after OSCM HSG and the effect on thyroid function. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted of 196 consecutive consenting eligible women without overt hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism. All completed the study with compliance greater than 95%. Participants underwent OSCM HSG (Auckland, 2019-2021) with serial monitoring of thyrotropin (TSH), free thyroxine (FT4), and urine iodine concentration (UIC) for 24 weeks. The main outcome measure was the development of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), defined as a nonpregnant TSH greater than 4 mIU/L with normal FT4 (11-22 pmol/L) in those with normal baseline thyroid function. RESULTS: Iodine excess (UIC ≥ 300 µg/L) was almost universal (98%) with UIC peaking usually by 4 weeks. There was marked iodine excess, with 90% and 17% of participants having UIC greater than or equal to 1000 µg/L and greater than 10 000 µg/L, respectively. Iodine excess was prolonged with 67% having a UIC greater than or equal to 1000 µg/L for at least 3 months. SCH developed in 38%; the majority (96%) were mild (TSH 4-10 mIU/L) and most developed SCH by week 4 (75%). Three participants met the current treatment guidelines (TSH > 10 mIU/L). Thyroxine treatment of mild SCH tended to improve pregnancy success (P = .063). Hyperthyroidism (TSH < 0.3 mIU/L) occurred in 9 participants (5%). CONCLUSION: OSCM HSG resulted in marked and prolonged iodine excess. SCH occurred frequently with late-onset hyperthyroidism occasionally. Regular thyroid function tests are required for 6 months following this procedure.

Once daily oral relugolix combination therapy versus placebo in patients with endometriosis-associated pain: two replicate phase 3, randomised, double-blind, studies (SPIRIT 1 and 2).

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common cause of pelvic pain in women, for which current treatment options are suboptimal. Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist, combined with estradiol and a progestin, was evaluated for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. METHODS: In these two replicate, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials at 219 community and hospital research centres in Africa, Australasia, Europe, North America, and South America, we randomly assigned women aged 18-50 years with surgically or directly visualised endometriosis with or without histological confirmation, or with histological diagnosis alone. Participants were eligible if they had moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain and, during the 35-day run-in period, a dysmenorrhoea Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score of 4·0 or higher on two or more days and a mean non-menstrual pelvic pain NRS score of 2·5 or higher, or a mean score of 1·25 or higher that included a score of 5 or more on 4 or more days. Women received (1:1:1) once-daily oral placebo, relugolix combination therapy (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethisterone acetate 0·5 mg), or delayed relugolix combination therapy (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix combination therapy, each for 12 weeks) for 24 weeks. During the double-blind randomised treatment and follow-up period, all patients, investigators, and sponsor staff or representatives involved in the conduct of the study were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were responder rates at week 24 for dysmenorrhoea and non-menstrual pelvic pain, both based on NRS scores and analgesic use. Efficacy and safety were analysed in the modified intent-to-treat population (randomised patients who received ≥1 study drug dose). The studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (SPIRIT 1 [NCT03204318] and SPIRIT 2 [NCT03204331]) and EudraCT (SPIRIT 1 [2017-001588-19] and SPIRIT 2 [2017-001632-19]). Eligible patients who completed the SPIRIT studies could enrol in a currently ongoing 80-week open-label extension study (SPIRIT EXTENSION [NCT03654274, EudraCT 2017-004066-10]). Database lock for the on-treatment duration has occurred, and post-treatment follow-up for safety, specificially for bone mineral density and menses recovery, is ongoing at the time of publication. FINDINGS: 638 patients were enrolled into SPIRIT 1 and randomly assigned between Dec 7, 2017, and Dec 4, 2019, to receive relugolix combination therapy (212 [33%]), placebo (213 [33%]), or relugolix delayed combination therapy (213 [33%]). 623 patients were enrolled into SPIRIT 2 and were randomly assigned between Nov 1, 2017 and Oct 4, 2019, to receive relugolix combination therapy (208 [33%]), placebo (208 [33%]), or relugolix delayed combination therapy (207 [33%]). 98 (15%) patients terminated study participation early in SPIRIT 1 and 115 (18%) in SPIRIT 2. In SPIRIT 1, 158 (75%) of 212 patients in the relugolix combination therapy group met the dysmenorrhoea responder criteria compared with 57 (27%) of 212 patients in the placebo group (treatment difference 47·6% [95% CI 39·3-56·0]; p<0·0001). In SPIRIT 2, 155 (75%) of 206 patients in the relugolix combination therapy group were dysmenorrhoea responders compared with 62 (30%) of 204 patients in the placebo group (treatment difference 44·9% [95% CI 36·2-53·5]; p<0·0001). In SPIRIT 1, 124 (58%) of 212 patients in the relugolix combination therapy group met the non-menstrual pelvic pain responder criteria versus 84 (40%) patients in the placebo group (treatment difference 18·9% [9·5-28·2]; p<0·0001). In SPIRIT 2, 136 (66%) of 206 patients were non-menstrual pelvic pain responders in the relugolix combination therapy group compared with 87 (43%) of 204 patients in the placebo group (treatment difference 23·4% [95% CI 13·9-32·8]; p<0·0001). The most common adverse events were headache, nasopharyngitis, and hot flushes. There were nine reports of suicidal ideation across both studies (two in the placebo run-in, two in the placebo group, two in the relugolix combination therapy group, and three in the delayed relugolix combination therapy group). No deaths were reported. Least squares mean percentage change in lumbar spine bone mineral density in the relugolix combination therapy versus placebo groups was -0·70% versus 0·21% in SPIRIT 1 and -0·78% versus 0·02% in SPIRIT 2, and in the delayed relugolix combination group was -2·0% in SPIRIT 1 and -1·9% in SPIRIT 2. Decreases in opioid use were seen in treated patients as compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Once-daily relugolix combination therapy significantly improved endometriosis-associated pain and was well tolerated. This oral therapy has the potential to address the unmet clinical need for long-term medical treatment for endometriosis, reducing the need for opioid use or repeated surgical treatment. FUNDING: Myovant Sciences.

Endometriosis classification systems: an international survey to map current knowledge and uptake.

STUDY QUESTION: Which classification system for endometriosis do clinicians use most frequently, and why? SUMMARY ANSWER: Even with a high uptake of the three existing endometriosis classification systems, most clinicians managing endometriosis would like a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In the field of endometriosis, several classifications, staging and reporting systems have been developed and published, but there are no data on the uptake of these systems in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 11 questions concerning three domains-participants background, existing classification systems and intentions with regards to a new classification system for endometriosis. Replies were collected between 15 May and 1 July 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed to gather data on the current use of endometriosis classification systems, problems encountered and interest in a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis. The particular focus was on the three systems most commonly used: the Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) classification, the endometriosis fertility index (EFI), and the ENZIAN classification. Data were analysed to detect statistically significant differences among user groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The final dataset included the replies of 1178 clinicians, including surgeons, gynaecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, fertility specialists and sonographers, all managing women with endometriosis in their clinical practice. Overall, 75.5% of the professionals indicate that they currently use a classification system for endometriosis. The rASRM classification system was the best known and used system, while the EFI system and ENZIAN system were known by a majority of the professionals but used by only a minority. The lack of clinical relevance was most often selected as a problem with using any system. The vast majority of respondents replied positively to the question on whether they would use a simple surgical descriptive system available for endometriosis, if available. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: While the total number of respondents was acceptable, some regions/professions were not sufficiently represented to draw conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings of the survey suggest that clinicians worldwide are open to using a new classification system for endometriosis that can achieve standardized reporting and is clinically relevant and simple. The findings therefore support future initiatives for the development of a new descriptive system for endometriosis and provide information on user expectations and conditions for universal uptake of such a system. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings and activities of the working group were funded by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy, ESHRE and World Endometriosis Society. A.W.H. reports grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring, Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Standard Life, and consultancy fees from Roche Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nordic Pharma and Ferring, outside the submitted work. In addition, A.W.H. has a patent Serum biomarker for endometriosis pending. He is Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials and Chair of RCOG Academic Board 2018-2021. M.A. reports being member of the executive board and vice president of AAGL. N.P.J. reports personal fees from Abbott, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Vifor Pharma, Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work; he is also President of the World Endometriosis Society and chair of the trust board. S.M. reports grants from AbbVie, DoD, NIH and Marriot Family Foundation, honoraria from University British Columbia and WERF, support for speaking at conferences (ESHRE, CanSAGE, Endometriosis UK, UEARS, IFFS, IASP, National Endometriosis Network UK) participation on Advisory Boards from AbbVie and Roche, outside the submitted work. She also discloses having a leadership or fiduciary role in SWHR, WERF, WES, ASRM and ESHRE. C.T. reports grants, consulting and speakers' fees non-financial support and other from Merck SA, non-financial support and other consulting fees from Gedeon Richter and Nordic Pharma, and support for meeting attendance non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work and without private revenue. K.T.Z. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, MDNA Life Sciences, Volition Rx, and Evotec (Lab282-Partnership programme with Oxford University), non-financial support from AbbVie Ltd, all outside the submitted work; and is a Board member (Secretary) of the World Endometriosis Society and World Endometriosis Research Foundation. J.P. reports personal fees from Hologic, Inc., outside the submitted work; he is also a member of the executive boards of ASRM and SRS. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

Hysterosalpingography with Oil-Soluble Contrast Medium Does Not Increase Newborn Hypothyroidism.

OBJECTIVE: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-soluble contrast medium (OSCM) improves pregnancy rates in women with idiopathic infertility. However, OSCM has high iodine content and slow clearance resulting in potential iodine excess. If pregnancy occurs, this could impact fetal thyroid gland development and function. We aim to determine the effect of a preconceptional OSCM HSG on the thyroid function of the neonate. Design and Patients. This was a retrospective analysis of newborn TSH data for a cohort of neonates conceived within six months of an OSCM HSG in the Auckland region, New Zealand, from the years 2000 to 2019. Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels of these newborns were obtained from newborn screening, which is routinely performed for all children at 48-72 hours of life. The primary outcome was the incidence of permanent or transient congenital hypothyroidism in this cohort. RESULTS: Of 146 babies included, all had normal TSH levels with values ranging from 1 to 7 mIU/L on the whole blood analysis of a capillary heel sample using the Perkin-Elmer AutoDelfia assay. Conception during the first 3 cycles following an OSCM HSG was 76%; however, TSH levels in this group were not higher than those conceived in later cycles. CONCLUSION: Preconceptional OSCM HSG did not increase the risk of congenital hypothyroidism in the New Zealand scenario.

Endometriosis Classification Systems: An International Survey to Map Current Knowledge and Uptake.

OBJECTIVE: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed, but do clinicians routinely use these classification systems, which system do they use and what are the clinicians' motivations? DATA SOURCES: A cross-sectional study was performed to gather data on the current use of endometriosis classification systems, problems encountered and interest in a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis. Of particular focus were three systems most commonly used: the Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) classification, the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), and the ENZIAN classification. Data were analysed by SPSS. A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 11 questions concerning three domains-participants background, existing classification systems and intentions with regards to a new classification system for endometriosis. Replies were collected between 15 May and 1 July 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: The final dataset included the replies of 1178 clinicians, including surgeons, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, fertility specialists and sonographers, all managing women with endometriosis in their clinical practice. Overall, 75.5% of the professionals indicate that they currently use a classification system for endometriosis. The rASRM classification system was the best known and used system, the EFI system and ENZIAN system were known by a majority of the professionals but used by only a minority. The lack of clinical relevance was most often selected as a problem with using any system. The findings of the survey suggest that clinicians worldwide are open to using a new classification system for endometriosis that can achieve standardized reporting, and is clinically relevant and simple. The findings therefore support future initiatives for the development of a new descriptive system for endometriosis and provide information on user expectations and conditions for universal uptake of such a system. CONCLUSION: Even with a high uptake of the existing endometriosis classification systems (rASRM, ENZIAN and EFI), most clinicians managing endometriosis would like a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis.

An International Terminology for Endometriosis, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: Different classification systems have been developed for endometriosis, using different definitions for the disease, the different subtypes, symptoms and treatments. In addition, an International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care has been published in 2017 by the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) in collaboration with other organisations. An international working group convened over the development of a classification or descriptive system for endometriosis. As a basis for such system, a terminology for endometriosis was considered a condition sine qua non. The aim of the current study was to develop a set of terms and definitions be prepared on endometriosis that would be the basis for standardization in disease description, classification and research. DATA SOURCES: The working group listed a number of terms relevant to be included in the terminology, documented currently used and published definitions, and discussed and adapted them until consensus was reached within the working group. Following stakeholder review, further terms were added, and definitions further clarified. Although definitions were collected through published literature, the final set of terms and definitions is to be considered consensus-based. After finalization of the first draft, the members of the international societies and other stakeholders were consulted for feedback and comments, which lead to further adaptations. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: A list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis is presented, including a definition for endometriosis and its subtypes, different locations, interventions, symptoms and outcomes. Endometriosis is defined as a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process. CONCLUSION: The current paper outlines a list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis. The application of the defined terms aims to facilitate harmonization in endometriosis research and clinical practice. Future research may require further refinement of the presented definitions.

Endometriosis Classification, Staging and Reporting Systems: A Review on the Road to a Universally Accepted Endometriosis Classification.

OBJECTIVE: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. Which endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published and validated for use in clinical practice? DATA SOURCES: A systematic PUBMED literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarized. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific, and different, purposes. There still is no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating the different systems are summarized showing a discrepancy between the intended and the evaluated purpose, and a general lack of validation data confirming a correlation with pain symptoms or quality of life for any of the current systems. A few studies confirm the value of the ENZIAN system for surgical description of deep endometriosis. With regards to infertility, the endometriosis fertility index has been confirmed valid for its intended purpose. CONCLUSION: Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated for the purpose for which they were developed. The literature search was limited to PUBMED. Unpublished classification, staging or reporting systems, or those published in books were not considered. It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes. This overview of existing systems is a first step in working towards a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

An international terminology for endometriosis, 2021.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a set of terms and definitions be prepared on endometriosis that would be the basis for standardization in disease description, classification and research? SUMMARY ANSWER: The current paper outlines a list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different classification systems have been developed for endometriosis, using different definitions for the disease, the different subtypes, symptoms and treatments. In addition, an International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care was published in 2017 by the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) in collaboration with other organisations. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: An international working group convened over the development of a classification or descriptive system for endometriosis. As a basis for such a system, a terminology for endometriosis was considered a condition sine qua non. The working group listed a number of terms relevant to be included in the terminology, documented currently used and published definitions, and discussed and adapted them until consensus was reached within the working group. Following stakeholder review, further terms were added, and definitions further clarified. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Although definitions were collected through published literature, the final set of terms and definitions is to be considered consensus-based. After finalization of the first draft, the members of the international societies and other stakeholders were consulted for feedback and comments, which led to further adaptations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis is presented, including a definition for endometriosis and its subtypes, different locations, interventions, symptoms and outcomes. Endometriosis is defined as a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Future research may require further refinement of the presented definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The application of the defined terms aims to facilitate harmonization in endometriosis research and clinical practice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings and activities of the working group were funded by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and World Endometriosis Society. A.W.H. reports grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring, Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Standard Life, Consultancy fees from Roche Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nordic Pharma and Ferring, outside the submitted work. In addition, A.W.H. has a patent Serum biomarker for endometriosis pending. N.P.J. reports personal fees from Abbott, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Vifor Pharma, Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work; he is also President of the World Endometriosis Society and chair of the trust board. S.M. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche outside the submitted work. C.T. reports grants, non-financial support and other from Merck SA, non-financial support and other from Gedeon Richter, non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work and without private revenue. K.T.Z. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, MDNA Life Sciences, Roche Diagnostics Inc, Volition Rx, outside the submitted work; she is also a Board member (Secretary) of the World Endometriosis Society and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, Research Advisory Board member of Wellbeing of Women, UK (research charity), and Chair, Research Directions Working Group, World Endometriosis Society. J.P reports personal fees from Hologic, Inc., outside the submitted work; he is also a member of the executive boards of ASRM and SRS. The other authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems: a review on the road to a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

STUDY QUESTION: Which endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published and validated for use in clinical practice? SUMMARY ANSWER: Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated, in 46 studies, for the purpose for which they were developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: A systematic PUBMED literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarized. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific, and different, purposes. There still is no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating the different systems are summarized showing a discrepancy between the intended and the evaluated purpose, and a general lack of validation data confirming a correlation with pain symptoms or quality of life for any of the current systems. A few studies confirm the value of the ENZIAN system for surgical description of deep endometriosis. With regards to infertility, the endometriosis fertility index has been confirmed valid for its intended purpose. LARGE SCALE DATA: NA. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The literature search was limited to PUBMED. Unpublished classification, staging or reporting systems, or those published in books were not considered. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes. This overview of existing systems is a first step in working toward a universally accepted endometriosis classification. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings and activities of the working group were funded by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and World Endometriosis Society. A.W.H. reports grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring, Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Standard Life, Consultancy fees from Roche Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nordic Pharma and Ferring, outside the submitted work. In addition, A.W.H. has a patent Serum biomarker for endometriosis pending. N.P.J. reports personal fees from Abbott, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Vifor Pharma, Roche Diagnostics, outside the submitted work; he is also President of the World Endometriosis Society and chair of the trust board. S.M. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche outside the submitted work. C.T. reports grants, non-financial support and other from Merck SA, non-financial support and other from Gedeon Richter, non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work and without private revenue. K.T.Z. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, MDNA Life Sciences, Roche Diagnostics Inc, Volition Rx, outside the submitted work; she is also a Board member (Secretary) of the World Endometriosis Society and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, Research Advisory Board member of Wellbeing of Women, UK (research charity), and Chair, Research Directions Working Group, World Endometriosis Society. The other authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

Awareness and utilisation of advanced gynaecological ultrasound in the preoperative work-up of women planning surgery for endometriosis: A survey of RANZCOG fellows and trainees.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis-specific (advanced gynaecological) ultrasound is recommended as part of preoperative work-up of women with suspected endometriosis. AIM: To evaluate the awareness and utilisation of advanced gynaecological ultrasound in the preoperative work-up of women with suspected endometriosis among active RANZCOG (Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) fellows and trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anonymous online survey invitations were emailed to all active RANZCOG fellows in Australia and New Zealand. Descriptive analysis of responses and multivariate analysis where appropriate were performed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A 17% (437/2567) survey response rate and 93% (409/437) completion rate were recorded; 59% (248/421) of respondents identified as generalists, whereas 15% (63/421) identified as advanced laparoscopic surgeons. Routine pelvic ultrasound (88.9%, 361/406) was the most common imaging modality requested by respondents; 32% (128/405) of respondents would also always request advanced gynaecology ultrasound. Respondents' self-reported practice type was significantly associated with utilisation of advanced gynaecological ultrasound (P = 0.03); 79.6% (348/437) agreed with our proposed definition of advanced gynaecological ultrasound for endometriosis. A major limitation to the utilisation of advanced gynaecological ultrasound for endometriosis was the lack of local expertise (63.8%, 233/356). CONCLUSION: The utilisation of advanced gynaecological ultrasound for endometriosis is significantly influenced by respondents' self-reported practice type and limited by the lack of local expertise.

Iodine and fertility: do we know enough?

Iodine is a vital micronutrient and its importance in thyroid function is well established. However, abnormalities in iodine intake may also have other effects. In particular, iodine is taken up avidly by the ovary and endometrium. Iodine deficiency is associated with reduced fertility. The use of high iodine concentration contrast media has recently been shown to improve conception rates in couples with unexplained infertility (UI). We hypothesize that this improvement could be related to the iodine excess and mechanisms independent of its action on thyroid. In this article, the metabolism of iodine and its potential role in fertility will be discussed, including the impact of both iodine deficiency and excess states and the importance of iodine in normal fetal development. This will include insights from animal studies on the effect of iodine in the uterine and ovarian structural environment, hormonal milieu and immunological factors affecting implantation. We speculate that iodine may well have a role as a potential therapy for UI.

Self-management strategies to consider to combat endometriosis symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The care of patients with endometriosis has been complicated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Medical and allied healthcare appointments and surgeries are being temporarily postponed. Mandatory self-isolation has created new obstacles for individuals with endometriosis seeking pain relief and improvement in their quality of life. Anxieties may be heightened by concerns over whether endometriosis may be an underlying condition that could predispose to severe COVID-19 infection and what constitutes an appropriate indication for presentation for urgent treatment in the epidemic. Furthermore, the restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 can impose negative psychological effects, which patients with endometriosis may be more prone to already. In combination with medical therapies, or as an alternative, we encourage patients to consider self-management strategies to combat endometriosis symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. These self-management strategies are divided into problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies, with the former aiming to change the environment to alleviate pain, and the latter address the psychology of living with endometriosis. We put forward this guidance, which is based on evidence and expert opinion, for healthcare providers to utilize during their consultations with patients via telephone or video. Patients may also independently use this article as an educational resource. The strategies discussed are not exclusively restricted to consideration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most have been researched before this period of time and all will continue to be a part of the biopsychological approach to endometriosis long after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted.

Ignored Because It Is Benign - It Is Time to Treat Endometriosis as if It Were Cancer.

We are proposing a shift in mindset in the field of endometriosis, whereby care for patients with endometriosis mirrors that of patients with gynaecological cancer. To achieve this, we advocate for the recognition of complex benign gynaecology as a subspecialty. Since the establishment of gynaecological oncology as a subspecialty, outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer have improved, with their care managed by multidisciplinary teams in specialized units. Despite the marked difference in the primary treatment goal between these two conditions, they share common diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. We believe that care management by a multidisciplinary team of dedicated and specialized health care professionals will lead to improved outcomes, including improved quality of life, for people living with endometriosis.

When to Do Surgery and When Not to Do Surgery for Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to answer whether operative laparoscopy is an effective treatment in a woman with demonstrated endometriosis compared with alternative treatments. Moreover, we aimed to assess the risks of operative laparoscopy compared with those of alternatives. In addition, we aimed to systematically review the literature on the impact of patient preference on decision making around surgery. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL, Scopus, OpenGrey, and Web of Science from inception through May 2019. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of relevant studies was conducted. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language describing a comparison between surgery and any other intervention were included, with particular reference to timing and its impact on pain and fertility. Studies reporting on keywords including, but not limited to, endometriosis, laparoscopy, pelvic pain, and infertility were included. In the anticipated absence of RCTs on patient preference, all original research on this topic was considered eligible. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: In total, 1990 studies were reviewed. Twelve studies were identified as being eligible for inclusion to assess outcomes of pain (n = 6), fertility (n = 7), quality of life (n = 1), and disease progression (n = 3). Seven studies of interest were identified to evaluate patient preferences. There is evidence that operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels at 6 months compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (risk ratio [RR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-4.34; p <.001; 2 RCTs, 102 participants; low-quality evidence). Because the quality of the evidence was very low, it is uncertain if operative laparoscopy improves live birth rates. Operative laparoscopy probably yields little or no difference regarding clinical pregnancy rates compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.99-1.92; p = .06; 4 RCTs, 624 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain if operative laparoscopy yields a difference in adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.84-4.65; p = .12; 5 RCTs, 554 participants; very-low-quality evidence). No studies reported on the progression of endometriosis to a symptomatic state or progression of extent of disease in terms of volume of lesions and locations in asymptomatic women with endometriosis. We found no studies that reported on the timing of surgery. No quantitative or qualitative studies specifically aimed at elucidating the factors informing a woman's choice for surgery were identified. CONCLUSION: Operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels but may have little or no difference with respect to fertility-related or adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy. Additional high-quality RCTs, including comparing surgery to medical management, are needed, and these should report adverse events as an outcome. Studies on patient preference in surgical decision making are needed (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: CRD42019135167).