IMR Press / CEOG / Volume 49 / Issue 9 / DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog4909207
Open Access Original Research
Serum Chemokines and Quality of Life among Patients with Endometriomas and Teratomas
Show Less
1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland
2 Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, 61-712 Poznan, Poland
*Correspondence: karolinachmaj@poczta.onet.pl (Karolina Chmaj-Wierzchowska)
These authors contributed equally.
Academic Editor: Gloria Calagna
Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 49(9), 207; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog4909207
Submitted: 24 June 2022 | Revised: 20 July 2022 | Accepted: 20 July 2022 | Published: 5 September 2022
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract

Background: Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterus, which can cause pelvic pain, infertility, and other symptoms. The disease may manifest as superficial peritoneal or deep-infiltrating endometriosis or as ovarian endometriomas. Although the mechanisms associated with the regulation and production of inflammatory mediators in endometriosis have been widely investigated, the precise mechanism responsible for inflammation-induced pain remains unclear, and the findings related to the cytokine expression profile and the location of cytokines in cells are contradictory. The intensity of pain experienced by endometriosis patients is not proportional to the degree and severity of their disease. Pain has a significant impact on women suffering from endometriosis. Methods: The following inclusion criteria to the study were: presence of endometriomas vs teratomas, negative pregnancy test result, no prior obstetric and infertility treatment, and good health condition with no diseases or coagulation disorders. Blood samples were collected from all patients. The serum levels of chemokines were determined by ELISA. The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) questionnaire was made. Results: The median serum levels of chemokines: Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein 1 (MCP-1) and Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein 3 (MCP-3) were statistically higher in the endometriomas group compared to the other two groups. In the NHP questionnaire the comparison of the subjective health dimensions in individual groups showed that the patients in the endometriomas group experienced a significantly higher intensity of “PAIN” compared to other groups. Correlation analysis between NHP dimensions and serum chemokine levels: spearman’s rank correlation analysis indicated a statistically significant relationship between the “VITAL ENERGY” dimension and the level of MCP-2 (r = –0.295; p = 0.022), MCP-3 (r = 0.254; p = 0.050), and RANTES (r = –0.353; p = 0.006); between the “EMOTIONS” dimension and the level of MCP-3 (r = 0.262; p = 0.043); and between the “INCONVENIENCE IN DAILY LIFE” dimension and the level of Eotaxin-1 (r = –0.283; p = 0.028) and CCL13 (r = –0.287; p = 0.026). Conclusions: The chemokines serum levels (i.e., MCP-1 and MCP-3) and intensity of “PAIN” were statistically higher in the endometriomas compared to the teratomas group of women. Therefore, understanding their role in endometriosis-related pain could help in the development of novel, multidisciplinary treatments.

Keywords
endometriomas
teratomas
quality of life
health problems
Nottingham Heath Profile
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic
1. Introduction

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterus, which can cause pelvic pain, infertility, and other symptoms [1]. The disease may manifest as superficial peritoneal or deep-infiltrating endometriosis or as ovarian endometriomas [2]. Endometriosis provokes a neurovascular response mediated by hormones. The growth of ectopic endometrial tissue stimulates an estrogen-dependent chronic inflammatory reaction, causing severe pain, which can be attributed to an increased prostaglandin production accompanied by compression and/or infiltration of approximal nerves [3]. Increased expression of nerve growth factors, high nerve fiber density, angiogenesis, and changes in the pattern of uterus innervation may also play a role in the manifestation of endometriosis [3]. Chemokines (chemotactic cytokines), a small subgroup of cytokines, lead to the chemotaxis of monocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and fibroblasts. One of the main functions of chemokines is to induce leukocytes to migrate to the site of inflammation [4]. Cytokines belonging to the CXC chemokine family, as well as their receptors, have been shown to be possibly involved in the proliferation and invasion of endometrial cells [4]. Although the mechanisms associated with the regulation and production of inflammatory mediators in endometriosis have been widely investigated, the precise mechanism responsible for inflammation-induced pain remains unclear, and the findings related to the cytokine expression profile and the location of cytokines in cells are contradictory [3, 4].

Based on the location, depth, and size of lesions, endometriosis can be categorized into four stages. However, this classification is ineffective in predicting the clinical outcomes, such as disease-related symptoms and associated discomfort [5]. The intensity of pain experienced by endometriosis patients is not proportional to the degree and severity of their disease. Pain has a significant impact on women suffering from endometriosis. Patients with chronic pain have a lower quality of life and a worse mental health condition, and are more likely to be depressed than patients living with a chronic disease without pain [6, 7]. Psychological intervention is recommended for patients suffering from chronic pain [8]. Eighty percent of endometriosis patients suffer from chronic pelvic pain [9]. Unfortunately, there is currently no one tool available for assessing the level of pain experienced by endometriosis patients [8]. Two of the most frequently used pain scales, not just in the case of endometriosis, are the visual analog scale and the numerical pain rating scale [10]. In addition, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) questionnaire, which is a less commonly used tool, allows assessing health problems and their impact on the daily functioning of patients [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. The results of this questionnaire were found to be consistent and strongly correlated with the findings of other tools, indicating that the measures are repeatable and reliable [11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

The current study aimed to assess the serum levels of MCP-1/Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein 1, MCP-2/Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein 2, MCP-3/Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein 3, Eotaxin-1/Eosinophil Chemotactic Protein, CCL13/Chemokine CC motif with ligand 13, RANTES/Regulated on Activation, Normal T cell Expressed and Secreted, CXCL9/Chemokine CXC motif with ligand 9, CXCL10/Chemokine CXC motif with ligand 10, CXCL11/Chemokine CXC motif with ligand 11 and determine their relationship with the quality of life or health problems among patients with endometriomas in comparison to patients with teratomas.

2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Materials

The study sample included patients with endometriomas and teratomas who were treated laparoscopically at the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinical Hospital of the Medical University of Poznan, during 2019–2020, before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

In the first stage of the study, the patients were subjected to a vaginal ultrasound examination. The initial diagnosis endometriomas (an ovarian tumor filled with hyperechoic fluid) or teratomas (hyper or hypoechoic tumor of the ovary) was made based on the ultrasound images. The final diagnosis was made based on histopathological examination of the tumors removed during surgery. The following inclusion criteria were applied for qualifying patients for surgery: presence of endometriomas vs teratomas, negative pregnancy test result, no prior obstetric and infertility treatment, and good health condition with no diseases or coagulation disorders. All the patients underwent laparoscopy during the first phase of the cycle (i.e., after the end of bleeding).

The control group included healthy patients who were undergoing preventive examination in the Gynecological Outpatient Clinic. Inclusion criteria for the study were: no ultrasound ovarian changes, negative pregnancy test result, no prior obstetric and infertility treatment, and good health condition with no diseases or coagulation disorders. After qualifying for the study, the patients came to the hospital the next morning (only to collect blood in a designated place and complete two questionnaires).

After surgery and histopathological examination, the patients were divided into three groups. Group E (endometriomas) included women who had been histologically diagnosed with endometriomas without macroscopic peritoneal endometriosis (n = 24). Group T (teratomas) included women with histologically diagnosed teratomas (n = 14). Group C (control) included healthy women who were undergoing routine, preventive gynecological examination (n = 22).

2.2 Methods

Blood samples were collected from all patients on the day of admission to the hospital, in the morning under fasting condition (i.e., 1 day before surgery). The levels of CA125 and HE4 were determined immediately after sample collection. The remaining blood samples collected for chemokine analysis were centrifuged and frozen at –20 °C.

The serum levels of chemokines were determined by ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). All the experiments were performed in duplicate to calculate measurement error. The concentrations of the analyzed parameters were determined in pg/mL by plotting a standard graph.

A total of 60 female patients aged 21–50 years participated in the study. Two questionnaires were used in the study: the questionnaire developed by the authors and the NHP questionnaire. The first one contained 10 questions concerning age, education, marital status, place of residence, financial situation, number of miscarriages and childbirths, and health condition [16, 17]. There are different scientific tools to asses quality of life among patients, everyone emphasizes some aspects. The NHP questionnaire is a validated research tool in the Polish language. It is a simple questionnaire that allows measuring the perceived physical, social, and emotional health status of an individual. The NHP questionnaire is designed to assess the influence of social and personal factors on illness [15]. Worth noticing is also the fact, that NHP was more sensitive to physical aspect of the disease, whereas SF-36 was more coherent in evaluating social functioning [16]. In contrary to widely used QoL questionnaires there are also developing tools of narrow use, like the Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-5) or World Endometriosis Research Foundation tool (WERF) [16].

It consists of two parts. The first fundamental part focuses on six dimensions, namely: “VITAL ENERGY,” “PAIN”, “EMOTIONS”, “SLEEP DISORDERS”, “SOCIAL ISOLATION”, “PHYSICAL FITNESS”, and “TOTAL”. This part assesses the patients’ current problems that have an impact on their health status, which includes their physical, psychological, and social functioning. The second part focuses on “INCOMPATIBILITIES IN EVERYDAY LIFE” and contains questions regarding the impact of the disease on the quality of life. All patients filled in the questionnaires on their own (1 day before the surgery and after their routine annual medical visit to the clinic).

2.3 Statistical Analysis

The results of the quantitative data analysis were presented as mean and standard deviation, and the median (Me) values were also calculated. Significant differences in the rank values obtained for parameters with a nonnormal distribution or parameters showing heterogeneous variance were evaluated by nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test. The results of the statistical analysis of qualitative data obtained from the questionnaire, which concern the characteristics of the studied patients, were presented as the number of individuals in a particular category (n). The differences in qualitative characteristics between the groups were analyzed using the χ2 independence test. The correlation between particular variables and the strength of this association was determined by calculating Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. The limit of significance was set at p = 0.05 in all the statistical tests.

3. Results

Group E included female patients with histopathologically confirmed endometriomas (n = 24), and their mean age was 33.50 ± 7.14 years. Group T included female patients with teratoma cysts (n = 14) who had undergone surgical treatment for benign ovarian lesions, and their mean age was 34.86 ± 8.03 years. Group C (control) comprised healthy women (n = 22) who were undergoing routine, annual gynecological examination, and their mean age was 23.86 ± 5.28 years (Table 1).

Table 1.General characteristics of the examined groups.
Mean Standard deviation 95% confidence interval for significance p
Lower limit Upper limit
Age endometriomas 33.500 7.138 30.485 36.514 0.000*
teratomas 34.857 8.027 30.222 39.492
control 23.863 5.276 21.524 26.202
Weight endometriomas 64.608 11.187 59.770 69.446 0.272
teratomas 67.928 12.086 60.950 74.906
control 62.045 8.555 58.252 65.838
Growth endometriomas 168.217 6.431 165.436 170.998 0.602
teratomas 167.785 5.264 164.745 170.825
control 166.545 4.137 164.711 168.379
Size of right ovary tumor [mm] endometriomas 42.70 19.172 28.99 56.41 0.386
teratomas 55.33 26.258 27.78 82.89
control
Size of left ovary tumor [mm] endometriomas 42.200 20.014 31.116 53.283 0.974
teratomas 41.750 15.153 29.081 54.419
control
HE 4 endometriomas 46.467 7.805 43.172 49.763 0.000*
teratomas 43.170 7.397 38.899 47.441
control 32.000 8.298 28.320 35.679
CA-125 endometriomas 46.826 32.812 32.971 60.682 0.000*
teratomas 25.583 16.595 16.001 35.165
control 19.227 3.584 17.6379 20.816
Based on estimated marginal means.
* Means difference is significant at 0.05.
3.1 General Characteristics of the Studied Groups

All the studied women had good general health condition without coexisting diseases. The general characteristics, the size of ovarian tumors, and the levels of CA125 and HE4 markers determined in each of the analyzed groups are presented in Table 1.

3.2 Serum Chemokine Levels

The median serum levels of MCP-1 and MCP-3 were statistically higher in the endometriomas group compared to the other two groups (Table 2).

Table 2.Serum chemokine levels.
Mean Standard deviation 95% confidence interval for significance p
Lower limit Upper limit
MCP-1 endometriomas 241.031 414.457 66.020 416.041 0.056*
teratomas 59.882 53.245 29.139 90.625
control 294.721 454.796 93.076 496.367
MCP-2 endometriomas 9.283 4.556 7.359 11.207 0.786
teratomas 9.753 3.968 7.461 12.044
control 12.680 10.257 8.132 17.228
MCP-3 endometriomas 169.757 640.639 –100.760 440.275 0.056*
teratomas 32.072 7.768 27.587 36.557
control 41.460 14.624 34.976 47.945
Eotaxin-1 endometriomas 310.782 234.389 211.808 409.756 0.431
teratomas 264.220 192.624 153.002 375.438
control 516.344 599.286 250.635 782.053
CCL13 endometriomas 71.598 28.394 59.608 83.588 0.555
teratomas 69.721 37.901 47.837 91.604
control 60.552 22.252 50.686 70.418
CXCL9 endometriomas 74.963 112.327 27.532 122.395 0.754
teratomas 46.809 67.632 7.759 85.858
control 240.056 749.962 -92.458 572.571
CXCL10 endometriomas 69.677 70.826 39.770 99.585 0.704
teratomas 66.499 35.097 46.234 86.764
control 92.843 122.404 38.572 147.114
CXCL11 endometriomas 45.426 53.543 22.816 68.035 0.778
teratomas 33.797 18.052 23.374 44.220
control 86.199 122.639 31.824 140.574
RANTES endometriomas 778.928 316.640 645.222 912.633 0.602
teratomas 839.228 282.120 676.337 1,002.119
control 748.696 258.426 634.116 863.275
Based on estimated marginal means.
* Means difference is significant at 0.05.
3.3 NHP Questionnaire

The comparison of the subjective health dimensions in individual groups showed that the patients in the endometriomas group experienced a significantly higher intensity of “PAIN” compared to other groups (Table 3). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the seven dimensions of life.

Table 3.Nottingham Heath Profile questionnaire.
Mean Standard deviation 95% confidence interval for significance p
Lower limit Upper limit
VITAL ENERGY endometriomas 0.791 0.931 0.398 1.185 0.125
teratomas 0.214 0.425 –0.031 0.460
control 0.590 0.734 0.265 0.916
PAIN endometriomas 1.375 2.183 0.453 2.296 0.035*
teratomas 0.214 0.425 –0.031 0.460
control 0.454 1.738 –0.316 1.225
EMOTIONS endometriomas 1.333 1.129 0.856 1.810 0.307
teratomas 1.142 1.511 0.269 2.015
control 1.090 1.770 0.306 1.875
SLEEP DISORDERS endometriomas 0.625 1.209 0.114 1.135 0.432
teratomas 0.642 1.336 –0.128 1.414
control 1.136 1.641 0.408 1.864
SOCIAL ISOLATION endometriomas 0.208 0.588 –0.040 0.456 0.848
teratomas 0.142 0.534 –0.165 0.451
control 0.227 0.685 –0.076 0.531
PHYSICAL FITNESS endometriomas 0.625 1.279 0.084 1.165 0.218
teratomas 0.214 0.578 –0.120 0.548
control 0.227 0.685 –0.076 0.531
TOTAL endometriomas 4.958 5.204 2.760 7.155 0.179
teratomas 2.571 3.588 0.499 4.643
control 3.727 5.649 1.222 6.232
INCOMPATIBILITIES IN EVERYDAY LIFE endometriomas 1.642 2.211 2.760 3.267 0.235
teratomas 1.234 2.896 1.482 3.125
control 0.726 1.632 0.231 1.982
Based on estimated marginal means.
* Means difference is significant at 0.05.
3.4 Correlation Analysis between NHP Dimensions and Serum Chemokine Levels

Spearman’s rank correlation analysis indicated a statistically significant relationship between the “VITAL ENERGY” dimension and the level of MCP-2 (r = –0.295; p = 0.022), MCP-3 (r = 0.254; p = 0.050), and RANTES (r = –0.353; p = 0.006); between the “EMOTIONS” dimension and the level of MCP-3 (r = 0.262; p = 0.043); and between the “INCONVENIENCE IN DAILY LIFE” dimension and the level of Eotaxin-1 (r = –0.283; p = 0.028) and CCL13 (r = –0.287; p = 0.026). No statistically significant association between the NHP dimensions and the serum levels of chemokines was shown by the analysis for the control and teratomas group of women (Table 4).

Table 4.The correlation analysis between NHP and serum chemokine levels.
MCP-1 MCP-2 MCP-3 Eotaxin-1 CCL13 CXCL9 CXCL10 CXCL11 RANTES
rho Spearmana VITAL ENERGY r –0.102 –0.295* 0.254* –0.222 –0.098 –0.011 –0.010 –0.001 –0.353**
p 0.439 0.022 0.050 0.088 0.455 0.935 0.942 0.991 0.006
PAIN r –0.125 –0.107 0.220 –0.144 –0.127 –0.163 –0.042 –0.028 –0.141
p 0.342 0.414 0.091 0.271 0.332 0.214 0.751 0.829 0.283
EMOTIONS r –0.002 –0.250 0.262* –0.107 –0.116 0.101 0.234 0.085 –0.064
p 0.989 0.054 0.043 0.414 0.378 0.441 0.072 0.518 0.627
SLEEP DISORDERS r 0.140 0.040 0.107 0.125 –0.217 –0.078 –0.056 –0.171 –0.077
p 0.286 0.762 0.417 0.340 0.096 0.552 0.671 0.193 0.560
SOCIAL ISOLATION r 0.090 –0.100 0.196 –0.068 –0.059 0.099 0.116 0.168 –0.195
p 0.492 0.449 0.134 0.607 0.656 0.451 0.377 0.199 0.136
PHYSICAL FITNESS r –0.182 –0.181 –0.006 –0.188 –0.247 –0.091 –0.067 –0.082 –0.192
p 0.165 0.167 0.965 0.151 0.057 0.491 0.611 0.533 0.142
TOTAL r –0.017 –0.181 0.253 –0.122 –0.214 0.009 0.084 –0.008 –0.225
p 0.898 0.168 0.051 0.353 0.100 0.947 0.522 0.953 0.084
INCOMPATIBILITIES IN EVERYDAY LIFE r –0.185 0.045 0.007 –0.283* –0.287* –0.120 –0.065 –0.170 0.068
p 0.157 0.733 0.956 0.028 0.026 0.360 0.624 0.193 0.603
Based on estimated marginal means.
* Means difference is significant at 0.05.
** Means difference is significant at 0.005.
4. Discussion

The predominant complaint reported by endometriosis patients is pain, which often persists even after the disease is treated. Endometriosis-related pain can be caused by several factors, including nociception, inflammation, and alterations in pain processing functions in the nervous systems. As observed in other chronic diseases, pain due to endometriosis often leads to psychological restlessness and fatigue, which can further worsen pain and reduce the quality of life of patients [18, 19]. Compared to patients with asymptomatic endometriosis, endometriosis patients with pelvic pain have a poorer quality of life and mental health [8]. The issue of pain in endometriosis patients has already been studied [16, 17]. Previous works, as well as the present study, showed that patients with endometriomas experienced a significantly higher intensity of “PAIN” compared to other groups. However, Bień et al. [20] highlighted that women with endometriosis rated the overall quality of life higher than the general state of health, which can be attributed to the patients’ acceptance of their disease [20]. The degree of disease progression does not correlate with the subjective symptoms; therefore, the quality of life can be measured and compared using validated questionnaires [21]. Unfortunately, women with deep-infiltrating endometriosis have issues in various domains of quality of life, regardless of the questionnaire used for the assessment [22]. It seems that the NHP questionnaire could be routinely used for endometriosis patients and could be considered as a screening test by family doctors. Patients suffering from severe pain due to endometriosis can be assessed using the NHP questionnaire, and regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, should be treated immediately.

In continuation of the previous research [23, 24, 25], the present study investigated the levels of selected chemokines and their relationship with the quality of life of patients with endometriomas. Endometriosis is a well-known chronic inflammatory condition in which endometrial tissue grows outside the uterus, mainly into the peritoneum [26]. The main source of endometriosis-related pain appears to be lesions and adhesions. However, removal of the lesions does not help with pain in all patients [9, 27]. It has been observed that the peritoneal fluid undergoes several biological changes in endometriosis patients. The dynamic interactions between cytokines may contribute to developing an appropriate microenvironment for the implantation of endometrial cells as well as disease progression [26]. Chen et al. [28] observed that in patients with endometriosis progression peritoneal fluid chemokines (MCP-1, MCP-3, CXCL1, CXCL2) are produced at a significantly higher level [28]. CXCL12 can affect the proliferation, migration, and invasion of endometriotic cells [29]. The ligand–receptor complexes such as CXCR4–CXCL12 and CXCL12–CXCR7 are also activated in endometriosis [30]. Pizzo et al. [26] reported that the serum levels of MCP-1 and IL-8 decreased with increasing severity of endometriosis, while the concentration of peritoneal fluid significantly increased in severe stages [26]. Similarly, Hornung et al. [31] highlighted that the level of eotaxin-1 in the peritoneal fluid was higher in patients with moderate-to-severe endometriosis [31], suggesting that this protein interacts with other cytokines and immune cells, contributing to inflammation [31]. Măluțan et al. [32] found increased levels of MCP-1 and IL-8 and lower levels of Eotaxin-1 in the serum of endometriosis patients, which may indicate that the immune activity is imbalanced in this disease [32]. These findings are in line with the results of the present study which demonstrated that the median values of MCP-1 and MCP-3 cytokines were statistically significantly higher in the endometriomas group.

Indeed, it seems that the effects induced by pelvic endometriosis, including the breakdown of peritoneal homeostasis and the production of pro-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic cytokines, are responsible for the altered innervation and modulation of pain pathways [33, 34] and perhaps the higher intensity of pain. In this study, the correlation analysis did not show any statistically significant relationship between “PAIN” and the level of serum chemokines in the studied endometriomas patients. However, a statistically significant relationship was found between the “VITAL ENERGY” dimension and the serum levels of MCP-2, MCP-3, and RANTES; between the “EMOTIONS” dimension and the serum level of MCP-3; and between the “INCONVENIENCE IN DAILY LIFE” dimension and the serum levels of eotaxin-1 and CCL13. According to Roch et al. [35], cytokines and chemokines are not reliable markers for predicting the presence of endometriosis in women who show the symptoms of this disease [35].

Patients suffering from endometriosis, regardless of pathogenesis [36], experience pain every day [8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20] and often require immediate consultation, planned surgeries, or even emergency surgical interventions. SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significant negative consequences for endometriosis patients worldwide, including postponed surgeries [37, 38, 39], reduced quality of life [40], worsened access to care [41], difficulties in repeating painkiller or hormone prescriptions, and missed appointments [42]. Clinicians should remember that patients suffering from endometriosis or its symptoms, especially pain, need long-term treatment and consultation with doctors. In case of contraindications to a face-to-face appointment, patients can use telemedicine techniques to have regular contact with clinicians [43, 44]. In particular, patients who have had multiple surgeries or who experience sudden, substantial bleeding should be aware of the symptoms that prompt a visit to the gynecological emergency unit.

5. Conclusions

The chemokines serum levels (i.e., MCP-1 and MCP-3) and intensity of “PAIN” were statistically higher in the endometriomas compared to the teratomas group of women. Therefore, understanding their role in endometriosis-related pain could help in the development of novel, multidisciplinary treatments.

Author Contributions

MWo, KCW, AJ participated in design of the study and overseeing research. KCW, KW, PR performed the research, with help from IP, KB, MWi. KCW, KW, MWo wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The methods used for patient enrollment, study material collection, and sample storage were approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Poznan University of Medical Sciences (Resolution No. 1127/18).

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Director of the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Hospital of the Poznan University of Medical Sciences for specifically approving the methods used for patient enrollment and protocols followed for obtaining and storing the study material.

We also thank Translmed Publishing Group (Bedford, NH, USA), a proofreading and copyediting company, for helping in copyediting this manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study. In the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. KCW, KW and M-jW are serving as one of the Guest editors of this journal. We declare that KCW, KW and M-jW had no involvement in the peer review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to GC.

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References
[1]
Chapron C, Marcellin L, Borghese B, Santulli P. Rethinking mechanisms, diagnosis and management of endometriosis. Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 2019; 15: 666–682.
[2]
Rolla E. Endometriosis: Advances and controversies in classification, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. F1000Research. 2019; 8: F1000 Faculty Rev–529.
[3]
Sachedin A, Todd N. Dysmenorrhea, endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain in adolescents. Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology. 2020; 12: 7–17.
[4]
Machairiotis N, Vasilakaki S, Thomakos N. Inflammatory mediators and pain in endometriosis: A systematic review. Biomedicines. 2021; 9: 54.
[5]
Mehedintu C, Plotogea MN, Ionescu S, Antonovici M. Endometriosis still a challenge. Journal of medicine and life. 2014; 7: 349–357.
[6]
Gao X, Yeh Y, Outley J, Simon J, Botteman M, Spalding J. Health-related quality of life burden of women with endometriosis: A literature review. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2006; 22: 1787–1797.
[7]
Cox H, Henderson L, Andersen N, Cagliarini G, Ski Ch. Focus group study of endometriosis: Struggle, loss and the medical merry-go round. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2003; 9: 2–9.
[8]
Facchin F, Barbara G, Saita E, Mosconi P, Roberto A, Fedele L, et al. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and mental health: Pelvic pain makes the difference. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2015; 36: 135–141.
[9]
Maddern J, Grundy L, Castro J, Brierley SM. Pain in endometriosis. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 2020; 14: 590823.
[10]
Bourdel N, Alves J, Pickering G, Ramilo I, Roman H, Canis M. Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: How to choose a scale? Human Reproduction Update. 2015; 21: 136–152.
[11]
Wann-Hansson C, Hallberg IR, Risberg B, Klevsgård R. A comparison of the nottingham health profile and short form 36 health survey in patients with chronic lower limb ischaemia in a longitudinal perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2004; 2: 9.
[12]
Liang Y, Wang H, Tao X. Quality of life of young clinical doctors in public hospitals in China’s developed cities as measured by the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). International Journal for Equity in Health. 2015; 14: 85.
[13]
Ernstberger T, Köster G, Walde T, Schultz W. The Nottingham health profile–experiences after hip revision arthroplasty. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2005; 125: 521–525.
[14]
Yildiz N, Topuz O, Gungen GO, Deniz S, Alkan H, Ardic F. Health-related quality of life (Nottingham Health Profile) in knee osteoarthritis: correlation with clinical variables and self-reported disability. Rheumatology International. 2010; 30: 1595–1600.
[15]
Ebrahim S, Barer D, Nouri F. Use of the Nottingham Health Profile with patients after a stroke. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 1986; 40: 166–169.
[16]
Chmaj-Wierzchowska K, Rzymski P, Wojciechowska M, Parda I, Wilczak M. Health-related quality of life (Nottingham Health Profile) in patients with endometriomas: Correlation with clinical variables and self-reported limitations. Archives of Medical Science. 2020; 16: 584–591.
[17]
Chmaj-Wierzchowska K, Wojciechowska M, Parda I, Plagens-Rotman K, Rzymski P, Wilczak M. How do health problems affect the quality and everyday life of patients with endometriomas? Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2020; 47: 571–575.
[18]
Morotti M, Vincent K, Becker CM. Mechanisms of pain in endometriosis. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2017; 209: 8–13.
[19]
Márki G, Bokor A, Rigó J, Rigó A. Physical pain and emotion regulation as the main predictive factors of health-related quality of life in women living with endometriosis. Human Reproduction. 2017; 32: 1432–1438.
[20]
Bień A, Rzońca E, Zarajczyk M, Wilkosz K, Wdowiak A, Iwanowicz-Palus G. Quality of life in women with endometriosis: A cross-sectional survey. Quality of Life Research. 2020; 29: 2669–2677.
[21]
Koliba P, Fanta M. Endometriosis and quality of life. Ceska Gynekologie. 2017; 2: 411–418.
[22]
Yela DA, Quagliato IDP, Benetti-Pinto CL. Quality of Life in Women with Deep Endometriosis: A Cross-Sectional Study. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e ObstetríCia/RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2020; 42: 90–95.
[23]
Chmaj-Wierzchowska K, Kampioni M, Wilczak M, Opala T. Do inflammatory factors play a significant role in etiopathogenesis of endometrial cysts? Part 1. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine. 2013; 20: 854–858.
[24]
Chmaj-Wierzchowska K, Kampioni M, Wilczak M, Sajdak S, Opala T. The role of chemokine and non-chemokine factors in pain-related complaints in patients with endometrial cysts. Polish Gynaecology. 2015; 86: 94–99.
[25]
Chmaj-Wierzchowska K, Kampioni M, Sajdak S, Wilczak M. Serum MCP-1 (CCL2), MCP-2 (CCL8), RANTES (CCL5), KI67, TNG-β levels in patients with benign and borderline ovarian tumours. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2019; 40: 278–283.
[26]
Pizzo A, Salmeri FM, Ardita FV, Sofo V, Tripepi M, Marsico S. Behaviour of Cytokine Levels in Serum and Peritoneal Fluid of Women with Endometriosis. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2002; 54: 82–87.
[27]
Abbott J, Hawe J, Hunter D, Holmes M, Finn P, Garry R. Laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility. 2004; 82: 878–884.
[28]
Chen Y, Wang K, Xu Y, Guo P, Hong B, Cao Y, et al. Alteration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells, chronic inflammatory cytokines, and exosomal mirna contribute to the peritoneal immune disorder of patients with endometriosis. Reproductive Sciences. 2019; 26: 1130–1138.
[29]
Ruiz A, Ruiz L, Colón-Caraballo M, Torres-Collazo BJ, Monteiro JB, Bayona M, et al. Pharmacological blockage of the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis in endometriosis leads to contrasting effects in proliferation, migration, and invasion. Biology of Reproduction. 2018; 98: 4–14.
[30]
Pluchino N, Mamillapalli R, Moridi I, Tal R, Taylor HS. G-Protein-Coupled Receptor CXCR7 is overexpressed in human and murine endometriosis. Reproductive Sciences. 2018; 25: 1168–1174.
[31]
Hornung D, Dohrn K, Sotlar K, Greb R, Wallwiener D, Kiesel L, et al. Localization in tissues and secretion of eotaxin by cells from normal endometrium and endometriosis. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2000; 85: 2604–2608.
[32]
Măluțan AM, Drugan T, Ciortea R, Bucuri C, Rada MP, Mihu D. Endometriosis-associated changes in serum levels of interferons and chemokines. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2017; 47: 115–122.
[33]
Triolo. Chronic Pelvic Pain in Endometriosis: An Overview. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2013; 5: 153–163.
[34]
Crispi CP Jr, Crispi CP, de Oliveira BRS, de Nadai Filho N, Peixoto-Filho FM, Fonseca MF. Six-month follow-up of minimally invasive nerve-sparing complete excision of endometriosis: What about dyspareunia? PLoS ONE. 2021;16: e0250046.
[35]
Rocha AL, Vieira EL, Maia LM, Teixeira AL, Reis FM. Prospective evaluation of a panel of plasma cytokines and chemokines as potential markers of pelvic endometriosis in symptomatic women. Gynecologic & Obstetric Investigation. 2016; 81: 512–517.
[36]
Riemma G, Laganà A.S, Schiattarella A, Garzon S, Cobellis L, Autiero R, et al. Ion channels in the pathogenesis of endometriosis: A cutting-edge point of view. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21: 1114.
[37]
Meredith JW, High KP, Freischlag JA. Preserving Elective Surgeries in the COVID-19 pandemic and the future. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2020; 324: 1725.
[38]
Coratti F, Vannuccini S, Foppa C, Staderini F, Coratti A, Cianchi F, et al. Emergency surgery for appendectomy and incidental diagnosis of superficial peritoneal endometriosis in fertile age women. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2020; 41: 729–733.
[39]
Crispi CP, Crispi CP, de Almeida Nogueira E, Balthar PC, Guerra CGS, de Freitas Fonseca M. Endometriosis Surgery during the first Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Brazilian Single Institution Experience. Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021; 2021: 5040873.
[40]
Carrillo JF, Cross S, Antunez Flores O, Gordon K, Schneider B, As-Sanie S. Treating women with endometriosis-associated pain during the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: S55.
[41]
Ramos-Echevarría PM, Soto-Soto DM, Torres-Reverón A, Appleyard CB, Akkawi T, Barros-Cartagena BD, et al. Impact of the early COVID-19 era on endometriosis patients: Symptoms, stress, and access to care. Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders. 2021; 13: 111–121.
[42]
Demetriou L, Cox E, Lunde CE, Becker CM, Invitti AL, Martínez-Burgo B, et al. The global impact of covid-19 on the care of people with endometriosis. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health. 2021; 2: 65.
[43]
Grimes CL, Balk EM, Dieter AA, Singh R, Wieslander CK, Jeppson PC, et al. Guidance for gynecologists utilizing telemedicine during COVID-19 pandemic based on expert consensus and rapid literature reviews. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2020; 150: 288–298.
[44]
Schwab R, Anić K, Stewen K, Schmidt MW, Kalb SR, Kottmann T, et al. Pain experience and social support of endometriosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany–results of a web-based cross-sectional survey. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16: e0256433.
Share
Back to top