Background: Early and accurate diagnosis of endometriosis is crucial for the management of this benign, yet debilitating pathology. Despite the advances of modern medicine, there is no common ground regarding the pathophysiology of this disease as it continues to affect the quality of life of millions of women of reproductive age. The lack of specific symptoms often determines a belated diagnosis. The gold standard remains invasive, surgery followed by a histopathological exam. A biomarker or a panel of biomarkers is easy to measure, usually noninvasive, and could benefit the clinician in both diagnosing and monitoring the treatment response. Several studies have advanced the idea of biomarkers for endometriosis, thereby circumventing unnecessary invasive techniques. Our paper aims at harmonizing the results of these studies in the search of promising perspectives on early diagnosis. Methods: We selected the papers from Google Academic, PubMed, and CrossRef and reviewed recent articles from the literature, aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of various putative serum and urinary biomarkers for endometriosis. Results: The majority of studies focused on a panel of biomarkers, rather than a single biomarker and were unable to identify a single biomolecule or a panel of biomarkers with sufficient specificity and sensitivity in endometriosis. Conclusion: Noninvasive biomarkers, proteomics, genomics, and miRNA microarray may aid the diagnosis, but further research on larger datasets along with a better understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms are needed.

Early detection and accurate diagnosis are pivotal in the management of endometriosis and endometriosis-related ovarian neoplasms (ERONs), yet there is no clear common ground regarding their pathogenesis. Endometriosis is a debilitating pathology that profoundly impairs the quality of life. Although the spontaneous resolution of endometriosis is possible, studies suggest that it can be a progressive condition, and ERONs can develop. The gold standard for diagnosis remains as the invasive method of laparoscopy followed by histological confirmation. In recent years, novel biomarkers have been discovered. MicroRNAs (miRNA) represent important epigenetic modulators of gene expression and are very attractive as biomarkers due to their lower complexity, tissue specificity, and stability in bodily fluids. Several studies have advanced the possibility of miRNAs becoming potential biomarkers in endometriosis and ERONs. Our aim is to bring these studies together in order to have a better understanding of whether, how, and when miRNAs might be used as biomarkers for these pathologies. Methods: We selected the reviewed papers from Google Academic, PubMed, and CrossRef. A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: MiR-200 family, miR-143, 145, miR-20a, and miR199a were the most commonly dysregulated miRNAs in endometriosis, and miR-200 family was found to be dysregulated in both ERONs and endometriosis. Conclusions: No single miRNA was considered as a sole biomarker for this pathology. However, since the prognostic value of biomarkers is generally enhanced if more are assessed at the same time, a panel of miRNAs could be a better indicator of the disease.

Background: The spleen plays a central role in a range of diseases. As such, great emphasis has been placed on the procedure of spleen removal, the benefits and the numerous associated complications. Given the immediate risk of the thrombotic complications, the aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and laboratory patient characteristics in non-traumatic diseases of the spleen, and to investigate possible predictive factors for platelet count variation following the procedure. Methods: A total of 72 patients who underwent splenectomy were included in this retrospective study. Correlation coefficients as well as multiple linear regressions were used to assess the relationship between post-splenectomy platelet count and various preoperative clinical and laboratory patient characteristics. Results: Following multiple linear regression analysis, we determined that 54.93% of post-splenectomy platelet count variation was explained by admission platelet count (p = 0.00), lymphocyte count (p = 0.04), WBC count (p = 0.00), LOS (p = 0.00), patient gender (p = 0.00), spleen accessibility on admission (p = 0.02) and PT (p = 0.00). Conclusions: Platelet count variation following splenectomy for non-traumatic diseases can be predicted by assessing preoperative patient characteristics. The implications of this study suggest that by means of a prediction model, patient care could benefit from assessing and addressing various preoperative factors that lead to these complications.