Endometriosis and its associated infertility have been the object of continuous research for over a century. To understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the disease, it has become necessary to determine the aspects of its etiology that are not explained by the retrograde menstruation theory. This could in turn elucidate how various clinical and surgical treatments might affect the evolution and remission of the disease. This review is focused on the most recent clinical and laboratory findings regarding the association of HOXA10 with endometriosis and infertility. The homebox (Hox/HOX) proteins are highly conserved transcription factors that determine segmental body identities in multiple species, including humans. Hoxa10/HOXA10 is directly involved in the embryogenesis of the uterus and embryo implantation via regulation of downstream genes. Cyclical endometrial expression of Hoxa10/HOXA10, with a peak of expression occurring during the window of implantation, is observed in the adult in response to estrogen and progesterone. Women with endometriosis do not demonstrate the expected mid-luteal rise of HOXA10 expression, which might partially explain the infertility observed in many of these patients. Recent studies also demonstrated HOXA10 expression in endometriotic foci outside the Müllerian tract. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the actions of the homeobox A10 (Hoxa10/HOXA10) gene could account for some aspects of endometriosis.

Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms is essential for creating a system for patient referrals. Therefore, the contributions of the tumor markers CA125 and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as well as the risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk malignancy index (RMI) values were considered individually and in combination to evaluate their utility for establishing this type of patient referral system. Patients who had been diagnosed with ovarian masses through imaging analyses (n = 128) were assessed for their expression of the tumor markers CA125 and HE4. The ROMA and RMI values were also determined. The sensitivity and specificity of each parameter were calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves according to the area under the curve (AUC) for each method. The sensitivities associated with the ability of CA125, HE4, ROMA, or RMI to distinguish between malignant versus benign ovarian masses were 70.4%, 79.6%, 74.1%, and 63%, respectively. Among carcinomas, the sensitivities of CA125, HE4, ROMA (pre-and post-menopausal), and RMI were 93.5%, 87.1%, 80%, 95.2%, and 87.1%, respectively. The most accurate numerical values were obtained with RMI, although the four parameters were shown to be statistically equivalent. There were no differences in accuracy between CA125, HE4, ROMA, and RMI for differentiating between types of ovarian masses. RMI had the lowest sensitivity but was the most numerically accurate method. HE4 demonstrated the best overall sensitivity for the evaluation of malignant ovarian tumors and the differential diagnosis of endometriosis. All of the parameters demonstrated increased sensitivity when tumors with low malignancy potential were considered low-risk, which may be used as an acceptable assessment method for referring patients to reference centers.