I am still looking at a "blind spot" in my data that is needed for clinical decisions. I have no data that shows me that the results of clinical care are related to histologically positive or histology negative biopsies.
There is a $100 reward for the citation to a peer reviewed, published article abstracted in PubMed that is not listed below. There will be as many rewards as there are different papers.
I need peer reviewed, published articles that are abstracted in PubMed. These need to show a statistically significant difference in outcomes (pain, tenderness, fertility, change in appearance or other outcomes) of surgery or medical therapy based on histology that is positive (any two of glands, stroma, hemorrhage, CD10, Ber-EP4, or pan-cytokeratin) as compared with histology that is negative for endometriosis.
This excludes bipsies that are positive for other significant diseases such as cancer, ectopic pregnancy, or carcinoid tumor
The citation for the articles and the names of those who win the money will be posted at this page if they agree.
If the article is not in English, I will need an English translation of the abstract and of the statistical analysis.
I also need, but for only $100 and my thanks:
1) articles that investigated differences in outcomes based on positive versus negative histology, but did not show significant differences
2) articles that study endometriosis histology that include the histology for both endometriosis and all other lesions.
Concentrating on biopsy positive patients implies that we can ignore or discount patients who have a laparoscopic diagnosis of endometriosis but have histologically negative biopsies.
There is a large body of literature on accuracy of confirmation of endometriosis but no corresponding literature on histologic diagnosis of other peritoneal and pelvic abnormalities.
Calling "inflamed granulation tissue" endometriosis with no investigation of chlamydia, gonorrhea or other STDs is inadequate and is not compatible with the literature on chlamydia and STDs
Psammoma bodies, endosalpingiosis, low malignant potential tumor, ovarian cancer, Walthard Rests, low malignant potential tumor, mesothelial proliferation, lymphoid aggregates, nonspecific inclusions, granulation tissue and other pathology has been misdiagnosed as endometriosis.
Assuming that endometriosis can not have significant coexistent pathology.
Diagnosing the effects of STDs as endometriosis and not doing biopsies.
Diagnosing low malignant potential tumor orcancer as endometriosis and not doing biopsies.
Decisions on endometriosis therapy are based on different definitions. This can lead to data based on "any appearance," a dark, scarred appearance” "surgical diagnosis," “clinical diagnosis” or others. Although this may be reasonable in clinical care, it is not adequate for research.
Papers that analyzed positive and negative histology but have no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes.
Chapron C, Dubuisson J-B, Tardif D, Fritel X, Lacroix S, Kinkel K, et al. Retroperitoneal endometriosis and pelvic pain: Results of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament resection according to the rAFS classification and histopathologic results. J Gynecol Surg. 1998;14:51-8.
All 95 patients had possible retroperitoneal endometriosis infiltrating the uterosacral ligaments and underwent bilateral (14%) or unilateral (86%) uterosacral resection. Ureterolysis was necessary in 63% of cases. 89% had additional laparoscopic procedures. All (100%) patients had positive endometriosis
from some site (ovarian cysts, biopsy from the peritoneum or adhesions, uterosacral ligaments, etc.). Excellent response to deep dyspareunia and dysmenorrhea. Dysmenorrhea response was better when the histologic results of the uterosacrals were positive but this was not statistically significant. (81.6% vs 58.3%). For deep dyspareunia, there was no obvious difference (82.3% vs 76.5%).
Damario MA, Horowitz IR and Rock JA. The role of uterosacral ligament resection in conservative operation for recurrent endometriosis. J Gynecol Surg. 1994;10:57-61.
This was a retrospective review of 15 patients over 3 years. All patients had extensive resection of endometriosis
including ureterolysis and deep dissection. 12 (80%) also had pre-sacral neurectomy. He looked at relief comparing histologically positive and negative uterosacral ligaments and drew no statistical conclusions.
Jenkins TR, Liu CY, White J. Does Response to Hormonal Therapy Predict Presence or Absence of Endometriosis? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008, 15:82–86
Endometriosis was identified at laparoscopy in 41 (87%) of 47 patients who responded to hormonal therapy and 46 (81%) of 57 patients who failed to respond (p=0.37). Using final pathology as the basis of diagnosis, 31 (67%) of 46 responders and 39 (68%) of 57 non-responders had endometriosis
(p=0.91). When the data was analyzed by anatomic site of endometriosis, no significant difference was noted in response to preoperative hormonal therapy. Relief of chronic pelvic pain symptoms with preoperative hormonal therapy is not an accurate predictor of the presence or absence of histologically confirmed endometriosis at laparoscopy. Jenkins et al. adds histology and confirms Ling et al.'s 1999 paper on leuprolide in which had documented that 82% of women with endometriosis and 73% of those with none had pain relief on a GnRH agonist. Although that study was initially touted as indicating that Lupron could be used to diagnosis endometriosis, close examination of the data shows that inclusion in the study was more predictive of endometriosis than a response to the medication at 82% and 78% respectively. (Ling FW for the Pelvic Pain Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of depot leuprolide in patients with chronic pelvic pain and clinically suspected endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(1):51-8.