Background： Circulating endometrial cells （CECs） have been reported to be present in the peripheral blood of women with endometriosis （EM）, providing clear and specific evidence of the presence of ectopic lesions...Background： Circulating endometrial cells （CECs） have been reported to be present in the peripheral blood of women with endometriosis （EM）, providing clear and specific evidence of the presence of ectopic lesions. In this study, we established a method with a high detection rate of CECs, assessed the diagnostic value of CECs for EM and compared with serum CA125, and proposed a hypothesis for the pathogenesis of EM from the new perspective of CECs. Methods： The participants were enrolled prospectively from October 2015 to July 2016. The peripheral blood samples were collected from 59 participants, and the blood cells were isolated for immunofluorescence staining via microfluidic chips. The cells that were positive for vimentin/cytokeratin and estrogen/progesterone receptor and negative for CD45 were identified as CECs. The serum CA125 level was tested with electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Results： The detection rate of CECs reached 89.5% （17/19） in the EM group, which was significantly higher than that of the control group （15.0% [6/40], P 〈 0.001） and was independent of menstrual cycle phases. Furthermore, a positive CEC assay detected 4/5 cases of Stage Ⅰ–Ⅱ EM. In contrast, a positive CA125 test had limited value in detecting EM （13/19, 68.4%） and detected only one case of Stage Ⅰ–Ⅱ EM. Conclusion： CECs are promising biomarkers for EM with great potential for a noninvasive diagnostic assay.展开更多
文摘Background： Circulating endometrial cells （CECs） have been reported to be present in the peripheral blood of women with endometriosis （EM）, providing clear and specific evidence of the presence of ectopic lesions. In this study, we established a method with a high detection rate of CECs, assessed the diagnostic value of CECs for EM and compared with serum CA125, and proposed a hypothesis for the pathogenesis of EM from the new perspective of CECs. Methods： The participants were enrolled prospectively from October 2015 to July 2016. The peripheral blood samples were collected from 59 participants, and the blood cells were isolated for immunofluorescence staining via microfluidic chips. The cells that were positive for vimentin/cytokeratin and estrogen/progesterone receptor and negative for CD45 were identified as CECs. The serum CA125 level was tested with electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Results： The detection rate of CECs reached 89.5% （17/19） in the EM group, which was significantly higher than that of the control group （15.0% [6/40], P 〈 0.001） and was independent of menstrual cycle phases. Furthermore, a positive CEC assay detected 4/5 cases of Stage Ⅰ–Ⅱ EM. In contrast, a positive CA125 test had limited value in detecting EM （13/19, 68.4%） and detected only one case of Stage Ⅰ–Ⅱ EM. Conclusion： CECs are promising biomarkers for EM with great potential for a noninvasive diagnostic assay.
