Endometriosis · Diagnosis

Identification of plasma protein biomarkers for endometriosis and the development of statistical models for disease diagnosis

Schoeman EM, Bringans S, Peters K, Casey T, Andronis C, Chen L, Duong M, Girling JE, Healey M, Boughton BA, Ismail D, Ito J, Laming C, Lim H, Mead M, Raju M, Tan P, Lipscombe R, Holdsworth-Carson S, Rogers PAW

Published February 2025 Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
DOI 10.1093/humrep/deae278 PMID 39719050 PMC PMC11788222

RRM Academy Synopsis

A 10-protein blood panel detected endometriosis, best in severe cases

In a validation cohort of 749 Australian participants, researchers identified a panel of 10 blood proteins. Seven of them separated severe endometriosis from other pelvic pain with an AUC of 0.997 (1.0 is perfect). Scores fell for milder disease. The same model gave 0.852 for stage 1, and a model for stages 2 to 4 gave 0.729.

Key Findings

  • Blood plasma came from 464 people with endometriosis, 153 general population controls and 132 symptomatic controls. After age and BMI were accounted for, 10 proteins remained associated with endometriosis.
  • Model 3, for stage 4 endometriosis versus symptomatic controls, scored an AUC of 0.997 (95% CI 0.994–1.000), with sensitivity 98% and specificity 96%.
  • Model 3 applied to other stages gave an AUC of 0.852 for stage 1 (95% CI 0.811–0.893), 0.903 for stage 2 (0.853–0.953) and 0.908 for stage 3 (0.852–0.965).
  • Model 1, endometriosis versus general population controls, scored an AUC of 0.993 (95% CI 0.988–0.998).
  • Model 2, stages 2 to 4 versus symptomatic controls, scored an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI 0.676–0.783). In that comparison age and BMI alone scored 0.649 (95% CI 0.589–0.709).

Interpretation

The study discovered candidate proteins in one sample set, then tested them in a separate cohort. Results describe how well the panel sorts groups in these samples. Model 3 was built on stage 4 cases and symptomatic controls, then applied to stages 1 to 3. Most participants were of European ethnicity. Some general population controls may have had undiagnosed endometriosis. The authors say cut-offs need further optimization. Several authors hold shares in Proteomics International or an interest in its patent on these biomarkers.

RRM Context

Restorative reproductive medicine looks for the underlying cause. Endometriosis is a surgical disease, and excision removes the lesions. A blood test that flags disease could bring evaluation earlier for women whose pain was dismissed. Suppressive medications can hide symptoms while disease progresses.

Abstract

Study Question

Can a panel of plasma protein biomarkers be identified to accurately and specifically diagnose endometriosis?

Summary Answer

A novel panel of 10 plasma protein biomarkers was identified and validated, demonstrating strong predictive accuracy for the diagnosis of endometriosis.

What Is Known Already

Endometriosis poses intricate medical challenges for affected individuals and their physicians, yet diagnosis currently takes an average of 7 years and normally requires invasive laparoscopy. Consequently, the need for a simple, accurate non-invasive diagnostic tool is paramount.

Study Design, Size, Duration

This study compared 805 participants across two independent clinical populations, with the status of all endometriosis and symptomatic control samples confirmed by laparoscopy. A proteomics workflow was used to identify and validate plasma protein biomarkers for the diagnosis of endometriosis.

Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods

A proteomics discovery experiment identified candidate biomarkers before a targeted mass spectrometry assay was developed and used to compare plasma samples from 464 endometriosis cases, 153 general population controls, and 132 symptomatic controls. Three multivariate models were developed: Model 1 (logistic regression) for endometriosis cases versus general population controls, Model 2 (logistic regression) for rASRM stage II to IV (mild to severe) endometriosis cases versus symptomatic controls, and Model 3 (random forest) for stage IV (severe) endometriosis cases versus symptomatic controls.

Main Results and the Role of Chance

A panel of 10 protein biomarkers were identified across the three models which added significant value to clinical factors. Model 3 (severe endometriosis vs symptomatic controls) performed the best with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.997 (95% CI 0.994-1.000). This model could also accurately distinguish symptomatic controls from early-stage endometriosis when applied to the remaining dataset (AUCs ≥0.85 for stage I to III endometriosis). Model 1 also demonstrated strong predictive performance with an AUC of 0.993 (95% CI 0.988-0.998), while Model 2 achieved an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI 0.676-0.783).

Limitations, Reasons for Caution

The study participants were mostly of European ethnicity and the results may be biased from undiagnosed endometriosis in controls. Further analysis is required to enable the generalizability of the findings to other populations and settings.

Wider Implications of the Findings

In combination, these plasma protein biomarkers and resulting diagnostic models represent a potential new tool for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis.

Study Funding/Competing Interests

Subject recruitment at The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, was supported in part by funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grants GNT1105321 and GNT1026033 and Australian Medical Research Future Fund grant no. MRF1199715 (P.A.W.R., S.H.-C., and M.H.). Proteomics International has filed patent WO 2021/184060 A1 that relates to endometriosis biomarkers described in this manuscript; S.B., R.L., and T.C. declare an interest in this patent. J.I., S.B., C.L., D.I., H.L., K.P., M.D., M.M., M.R., P.T., R.L., and T.C. are shareholders in Proteomics International. Otherwise, the authors have no conflicts of interest.

Trial Registration

N/A.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Endometriosis › Diagnosis › Biomarkers · Research Methods › Measurement and Statistics › Instrument Development and Validation
Jane E Girling, Martin Healey, Peter A W Rogers
J Girling, M Healey, Pete Rogers, P Rogers
PMID 39719050 39719050 DOI 10.1093/humrep/deae278 10.1093/humrep/deae278 Schoeman et al. 2025, Schoeman 2025