Single Name: Endometriosis — A Unifying Vision for the Disease
Oct 16, 2025
Dr. Nezhat Calls for a Unified Terminology and Multisystem Recognition of Endometriosis
Key Points
Highlights:
- Dr. Nezhat emphasizes the need to recognize endometriosis as one systemic disease rather than a collection of isolated conditions.
- The article advocates for a single, unified terminology — “endometriosis” — encompassing all manifestations: pelvic, thoracic, diaphragmatic, urinary, intestinal, and beyond.
- Current fragmented classifications and terminology hinder both clinical communication and research comparability.
Importance:
- This article reframes endometriosis as a multifocal, systemic disorder with diverse clinical presentations but a shared underlying pathobiology.
- Recognizing it under one name would enhance diagnosis, awareness, and interdisciplinary collaboration across gynecology, surgery, pathology, and internal medicine.
What's Done Here?
- Authors draw on decades of surgical and academic experience to illustrate how the separation of pelvic and extra-pelvic forms has led to diagnostic delay and under-recognition.
- The paper consolidates evidence showing that the disease’s inflammatory, hormonal, and immunologic profiles are consistent across anatomical sites.
Outlines:
- The biological, histologic, and immunologic features of endometriosis remain consistent across organ systems.
- Dividing disease entities by anatomic site (e.g., pelvic, thoracic, urinary, bowel) leads to artificial distinctions that obscure the systemic nature of endometriosis.
- A unified diagnostic and nomenclature framework would strengthen clinical outcomes research, early recognition, and education.
- The proposed concept — “One Name: Endometriosis” — symbolizes both scientific unity and global advocacy alignment.
Strengths and Limitations:
- The strength is persuasive conceptual synthesis supported by extensive clinical experience and multidisciplinary insight.
- Limitation: Commentary-based rather than data-driven; the next step requires consensus and validation across specialties and international societies.
From the Editor-in-Chief – EndoNews
"Dr. Nezhat’s call for a unified terminology—“Single Name: Endometriosis”—is both visionary and provocative. It challenges the longstanding habit of defining the disease by its anatomic site and urges the medical community to view endometriosis as a systemic, multifocal disorder with shared biological underpinnings. The strength of this argument lies in its clarity: fragmentation in language mirrors fragmentation in care, and simplification could indeed promote earlier recognition and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Yet, as with all conceptual revolutions, the shift to a single label carries consequences. While a unifying term may streamline communication, it also risks oversimplifying the heterogeneity that exists across clinical presentations, molecular behavior, and therapeutic response. Recognizing one disease should not obscure the diversity of its mechanisms or the need for tailored management strategies.
The editorial’s value lies precisely in sparking this debate. Unification must not erase nuance—it must integrate it within a shared biological framework. As global efforts move toward standardized classification and precision medicine, the challenge will be to balance simplicity with specificity, ensuring that “one name” enhances, rather than limits, scientific understanding and patient care."
Lay Summary
In his editorial “Endometriosis: one name, many presentations,” recently published in Fertility and Sterility Reports, Dr. Ceana Nezhat calls for a unifying framework that recognizes endometriosis as one systemic disease with multiple manifestations, rather than a set of unrelated conditions defined by anatomical site.
Drawing on decades of pioneering surgical and academic work, Dr. Nezhat argues that distinctions such as “pelvic,” “thoracic,” “urinary,” or “bowel” endometriosis obscure the disease’s shared biological and pathological mechanisms. Regardless of location, the lesions exhibit similar histologic, hormonal, and inflammatory features.
This fragmentation in terminology, he notes, has historically led to diagnostic delays, inconsistent treatment approaches, and limited interdisciplinary communication. A single, standardized terminology—Endometriosis—would not only simplify research and clinical dialogue but also strengthen awareness, advocacy, and patient care across medical specialties.
Dr. Nezhat’s message is both scientific and symbolic: “One disease, one name.” Recognizing the systemic nature of endometriosis invites a more holistic understanding of its pathophysiology, fosters collaboration among surgeons, pathologists, and scientists, and supports the growing movement toward integrated, global recognition of endometriosis as a whole-body disorder.
