Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHabiba, Marwan
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-06T12:40:22Z
dc.date.available2024-02-06T12:40:22Z
dc.date.issued2023-12-25
dc.identifier.citationHabiba, M., Guo, S. W., & Benagiano, G. (2023). Are Adenomyosis and Endometriosis Phenotypes of the Same Disease Process?. Biomolecules, 14(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom14010032en_US
dc.identifier.other10.3390/biom14010032
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/18208
dc.description.abstractIn recent literature reviews, we concluded that the possibility that endometrial molecular aberrations are the sole or a necessary determinant of endometriosis and the Tissue Injury and Repair (TIAR) theory are yet to be convincingly proven. Here, we critically examine the theory that adenomyosis and endometriosis represent different phenotypes of a single disease. A common etiopathology for adenomyosis and endometriosis has been suggested because both conditions entail the presence of endometrial tissue at locations other than the lining of the uterus. There are wide differences in reported disease incidence and prevalence and, consequently, in estimates of the coexistence of both conditions. There are some similarities but also differences in their clinical features and predisposing factors. Each condition has a range of subtypes. These differences alone pose the question of whether subtypes of endometriosis and adenomyosis have different etiopathologies, and, in turn, this raises the question of whether they all share a common etiology. It is debatable whether the recognized differences between the eutopic endometrium in adenomyosis and endometriosis compared to those in unaffected women are the cause or the effect of the disease. The finding of common mutations, particularly of KRAS, lend support to the notion of shared predisposing factors, but this alone is insufficient evidence of causation.
dc.description.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/14/1/32en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectKRASen_US
dc.subjectadenomyosisen_US
dc.subjectendometriosisen_US
dc.subjectepidemiologyen_US
dc.subjectpathogenesisen_US
dc.titleAre adenomyosis and endometriosis phenotypes of the same disease process?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.3390/biom14010032en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
html.description.abstractIn recent literature reviews, we concluded that the possibility that endometrial molecular aberrations are the sole or a necessary determinant of endometriosis and the Tissue Injury and Repair (TIAR) theory are yet to be convincingly proven. Here, we critically examine the theory that adenomyosis and endometriosis represent different phenotypes of a single disease. A common etiopathology for adenomyosis and endometriosis has been suggested because both conditions entail the presence of endometrial tissue at locations other than the lining of the uterus. There are wide differences in reported disease incidence and prevalence and, consequently, in estimates of the coexistence of both conditions. There are some similarities but also differences in their clinical features and predisposing factors. Each condition has a range of subtypes. These differences alone pose the question of whether subtypes of endometriosis and adenomyosis have different etiopathologies, and, in turn, this raises the question of whether they all share a common etiology. It is debatable whether the recognized differences between the eutopic endometrium in adenomyosis and endometriosis compared to those in unaffected women are the cause or the effect of the disease. The finding of common mutations, particularly of KRAS, lend support to the notion of shared predisposing factors, but this alone is insufficient evidence of causation.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record