Imagine a tenant who refuses to vacate the premises. Not out of spite, but because no one ever told them they were in the wrong apartment. This is, in rough biological terms, endometriosis. Uterine-lining tissue (the endometrium) sets up shop outside the uterus, blithely cycling through its monthly routine of growing and shedding in locations that did not consent to the arrangement: ovaries, fallopian tubes, pelvic peritoneum, and, in rare cases, the abdomen, diaphragm, or lungs. The result is pain that can be spectacular, often debilitating, and frequently dismissed. It is estimated that endometriosis affects roughly one in ten people with a uterus worldwide (around 190 million individuals), and yet the average time from first symptom to diagnosis hovers stubbornly around ten years.
A brief and somewhat embarrassing history
Endometriosis was formally described in the medical literature in the 1920s, though accounts consistent with it appear far earlier. For most of the twentieth century, it was classified as a disease of “career women,” a designation that managed simultaneously to be condescending, classist, and entirely wrong. The theory held that ambitious women who delayed childbirth were punishing their uteruses with idleness. Medicine, in its infinite wisdom, prescribed pregnancy as a cure.
Pain, hormones, and the limits of laparoscopy
Endometriosis is, at present, definitively diagnosed only by laparoscopy, a surgical procedure in which a camera is inserted into the abdomen to visualize lesions directly. This is a considerable barrier to entry for a disease affecting tens of millions. Blood-based biomarkers have proven insufficiently sensitive and specific to serve as reliable screening tools. Non-invasive diagnosis remains the field’s holy grail.
Current treatment options are similarly blunt. Hormonal suppression (e.g., oral contraceptives, progestins, GnRH agonists) quiets the disease by mimicking either pregnancy or menopause, depriving the lesions of their estrogen-dependent fuel. Surgery excises visible lesions, but recurrence rates are high. Neither approach is a cure, and both carry significant quality-of-life trade-offs that the patient, almost invariably, manages alone.
A potential mechanism
The retrograde menstruation hypothesis, proposed by John Sampson in 1927, remains the most widely taught explanation for endometriosis: menstrual blood flows backward through the fallopian tubes, depositing endometrial cells in the peritoneal cavity. It is a tidy and appealing story, but largely incomplete. Most people who menstruate experience some retrograde flow, but not all develop endometriosis. Clearly, something else is happening, and that something else is, in large part, immunological.
A 2023 study by Muraoka and colleagues at Nagoya University offered a paradigm-shifting hypothesis: bacteria. Specifically, Fusobacterium, better known for its role in gum disease, was detected in the endometrial tissue of 64% of patients with endometriosis, compared to fewer than 10% of healthy controls. The amount of infiltrated Fusobacterium correlated with recruitment of macrophages to the lesion microenvironment. These cells are a source of a signaling factor called TGF-β that drives the conversion of resident fibroblasts into myofibroblasts, which are cells with an enhanced capacity to adhere and expand in number, contributing to larger and more frequent lesions. Notably, antibiotic targeting of Fusobacterium reduced lesion formation in a mouse model of endometriosis, raising the possibility that a similar approach could one day offer patients a non-hormonal, non-surgical alternative to the treatments currently on offer. But, of course, correlation is not causation, and much more research is needed to understand the root cause and treatment of this disease.
Addressing the research gap: better late than never
A 2019 analysis found that endometriosis received roughly $13 million in NIH funding that year compared to over $1 billion for diabetes research, despite each disease affecting the same number of people. The funding disparity has begun to close, driven in no small part by patient advocacy and a generation of researchers who declined to accept a decade-long diagnostic odyssey as an immutable fact of biology. Large-scale genomic studies have identified multiple susceptibility loci, and single-cell sequencing is beginning to map lesion heterogeneity, with the immune microenvironment and microbial landscapes as primary research targets. By dismantling old dogmas and securing the funding to match its true societal burden, endometriosis research has finally stepped out of the shadows. The decades spent waiting for answers are giving way to a momentum that promises faster diagnoses and pain relief.
Yashar Aghazadeh Habashi
Latest posts by Yashar Aghazadeh Habashi (see all)
- Endometriosis - October 5, 2026
- PCOS/PMOS and Chronic Low-Grade Inflammation: The Metabolic-Immune Crossover - October 5, 2026
- Undercover in the Uterus - October 5, 2026