Affiliation:
1. Endometriosis and Neuroenterology Research Institute, 53 Loveton Circle, Sparks Glencoe, MD 21152, USA
2. Woman’s Hospital of Texas, 7600 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77054, USA
3. Gastrointestinal Consultants of Houston, 7501 Fannin St., Suite 705, Houston, TX 77054, USA
4. Specialty Business Center, Integrative Ayurveda Gastroenterology and Nutrition Initiative, 202, Balewadi, Pune 411045, Maharashtra, India
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Endometriosis represents substantial direct and indirect healthcare costs impacted by an absence of uniformly accurate, non-invasive diagnostic tools. We endeavored to demonstrate gastrointestinal myoelectrical activity (GIMA) biomarkers, unique to endometriosis, will allow non-invasive, uniformly accurate diagnosis or exclusion of endometriosis. Methods: Prospective open-label comparative study of 154 patients, age ≥ 18, with or without diagnosed endometriosis. Population included 62 non-endometriosis controls (Cohort 1), 43 subjects with surgically/histologically confirmed endometriosis (Cohort 2), and 49 subjects with abdominal pain and negative imaging (Cohort 3). Non-invasive electroviscerography (EVG) recorded GIMA biomarkers from three abdominal electrodes before and 30 min post water load protocol. Cohort 2 had postoperative EVG and Cohort 3 had preoperative EVG. Calculated specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and predictive probability or C-statistic used univariate, multivariate, linear, and logistical regression analyses of the area under the curve (AUC) at all frequency and time points, including age and pain covariants. Results: The non-endometriosis cohort differed significantly from the endometriosis cohorts (p < 0.001) for median (IQR) and AUC percent frequency distribution of power at baseline, 10 min, 20 min, and 30 min post water load at all frequency ranges: 15–20 cpm, 30–40 cpm, and 40–50 cpm. The endometriosis cohorts were statistically similar (p > 0.05). GIMA biomarker threshold scoring demonstrated 95%/91% sensitivity and PPV, 96%/95% specificity and NPV, and a C-statistic of >99%/98%, respectively, for age subsets. GIMA biomarkers in Cohort 3 predicted 47/49 subjects positive and 2/49 negative for endometriosis, confirmed surgically. Hormonal therapy, surgical stage, nor pain score affected diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: EVG with GIMA biomarker detection distinguished participants with and without endometriosis based upon endometriosis-specific GIMA biomarkers threshold scoring.