According to consistent epidemiological data, the slope of the incidence curve of endometriosis rises rapidly and sharply around the age of 25years. The delay in diagnosis is generally reported to be between 5 and 8years in adult women, but it appears to be over 10 years in adolescents. If this is true, the actual onset of endometriosis in many young women would be chronologically placed in the early postmenarchal years. Ovulation and menstruation are inflammatory events that, when occurring repeatedly for years, may theoretically favour the early development of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Moreover, repeated acute dysmenorrhoea episodes after menarche may not only be an indicator of ensuing endometriosis or adenomyosis, but may also promote the transition from acute to chronic pelvic pain through central sensitization mechanisms, as well as the onset of chronic overlapping pain conditions. Therefore, secondary prevention aimed at reducing suffering, limiting lesion progression, and preserving future reproductive potential should be focused on the age group that could benefit most from the intervention, i.e. severely symptomatic adolescents. Early-onset endometriosis and adenomyosis should be promptly suspected even when physical and ultrasound findings are negative, and long-term ovulatory suppression may be established until conception seeking. As nowadays this could mean using hormonal therapies for several years, drug safety evaluation is crucial. In adolescents without recognized major contraindications to oestrogens, the use of very low-dose combined oral contraceptives is associated with a marginal increase in the individual absolute risk of thromboembolic events. Oral contraceptives containing oestradiol instead of ethinyl oestradiol may further limit such risk. Oral, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progestogens do not increase the thromboembolic risk, but may interfere with attainment of peak bone mass in young women. Levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine devices may be a safe alternative for adolescents, as amenorrhoea is frequently induced without suppression of the ovarian activity. With regard to oncological risk, the net effect of long-term oestrogen–progestogen combinations use is a small reduction in overall cancer risk. Whether surgery should be considered the first-line approach in young women with chronic pelvic pain symptoms seems questionable. Especially when large endometriomas or infiltrating lesions are not detected at pelvic imaging, laparoscopy should be reserved to adolescents who refuse hormonal treatments or in whom first-line medications are not effective, not tolerated, or contraindicated. Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms, including self-reported outcome measures, for young individuals with a clinical suspicion of early-onset endometriosis or adenomyosis are proposed.

Dove Press is a member of the Open Access Initiative, specializing in peer reviewed Medical Journals. View articlesor submit your research for publishing

One-fourth to one-third of women with endometriosis receiving first-line hormonal treatment lacks an adequate response in terms of resolution of painful symptoms. This phenomenon has been ascribed to “progesterone resistance”, an entity that was theorized to explain the gap between the ubiquity of retrograde menstruation and the 10% prevalence of endometriosis among women of reproductive age.Nevertheless, the hypothesis of progesterone resistance is not free of controversies. As our understanding of endometriosis is increasing, authors are starting to set aside the traditionally accepted tunnel vision of endometriosis as a strictly pelvic disease, opening to a more comprehensive perspective of the condition. The question is: are patients not responding to first-line treatment because they have an altered signaling pathway for such treatment, or have we been overlooking a series of other pain contributors which may not be resolved by hormonal therapy?Finding an answer to this question is evermore impelling, for two reasons mainly. Firstly, because not recognizing the presence of further pain contributors adds a delay in treatment to the already existing delay in diagnosis of endometriosis. This may lead to chronicity of the untreated pain contributors as well as causing adverse consequences on quality of life and psychological health. Secondly, misinterpreting the consequences of untreated pain contributors as a non-response to standard first-line treatment may imply the adoption of second-line medical therapies or of surgery, which may entail non-negligible side effects and may not be free of physical, psychological and socioeconomic repercussions.The current narrative review aims at providing an overview of all the possible pain contributors in endometriosis, ranging from those strictly organic to those with a greater neuro-psychological component. Including these aspects in a broader psychobiological approach may provide useful suggestions for treating those patients who report persistent pain symptoms despite receiving first-line hormonal medical treatment.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is experiencing advances and integration in all medical specializations, and this creates excitement but also concerns. This narrative review aims to critically assess the state of the art of AI in the field of endometriosis and adenomyosis. By enabling automation, AI may speed up some routine tasks, decreasing gynecologists’ risk of burnout, as well as enabling them to spend more time interacting with their patients, increasing their efficiency and patients’ perception of being taken care of. Surgery may also benefit from AI, especially through its integration with robotic surgery systems. This may improve the detection of anatomical structures and enhance surgical outcomes by combining intra-operative findings with pre-operative imaging. Not only that, but AI promises to improve the quality of care by facilitating clinical research. Through the introduction of decision-support tools, it can enhance diagnostic assessment; it can also predict treatment effectiveness and side effects, as well as reproductive prognosis and cancer risk. However, concerns exist regarding the fact that good quality data used in tool development and compliance with data sharing guidelines are crucial. Also, professionals are worried AI may render certain specialists obsolete. This said, AI is more likely to become a well-liked team member rather than a usurper.

It has been suggested that central sensitization (CS) may be involved in the failure of standard medical and surgical treatment to relieve endometriosis-related pain. However, there is no gold standard for the diagnosis of CS, and self-reported questionnaires are used as diagnostic surrogates. The main objective of this review was to identify all CS questionnaires used in clinical endometriosis studies. The secondary objective was to qualitatively analyze strengths and weaknesses of each questionnaire. A PubMed and EMBASE systematic literature search conducted in April 2023 using the terms “endometriosis; central pain; central sensitization; questionnaire; patient-reported outcome measure; screening tool” identified 122 publications: six articles were included in the review. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is the most frequently used questionnaire for the detection of CS in patients with endometriosis. It has been validated in patients with endometriosis, in whom it appears to have good psychometric proprieties. The Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ) has also been used, although it has not been specifically validated in endometriosis patients. The debate regarding these questionnaires’ construct validity is still open and will be so until a gold standard diagnostic tool for CS is found. In fact, some authors argue these questionnaires are measuring psychological vulnerability and a hypervigilant state that is associated with pain, rather than CS itself. However, their use should not be discouraged as they are able to identify chronic pain patients which warrant further attention and who may benefit from broader treatment strategies.