††slugcomment: To be submitted to the Astrophysical Journal Letter”Endometriosis and contemporary pain science: five ’simple rules’ for managing symptoms with different neurobiological mechanisms”Marcelo de França Moreira1, Marco Aurelio Pinho Oliveira2Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilDepartment of Gynecology, State University of Rio de Janeiro,Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazilmfmmindfulness@gmail.comDear Dr. Aris Papageorghiou,We appreciate the thoughtful engagement of Vercellini et al.1 with our article and their contribution to the ongoing discussion on endometriosis-related pain. Our intention was to highlight fundamental concepts from contemporary pain science that, in our view, are still underrepresented in gynecologic practice. The authors’ five “simple rules” offer a pragmatic set of clinical considerations that represent a starting point for helping gynecologists broaden their understanding of hormonal influences on pain mechanisms. We particularly value the fifth rule, which highlights the crucial role of clinician behavior and therapeutic relationships in promoting effective care.Nonetheless, we believe it is important to caution against an oversimplification of the complex processes involved in the condition and of the strategies best suited to infer them. We agree with the authors that timely pain management is crucial—preventing prolonged nociceptive stimulation may reduce the risk of central sensitization and the development of nociplastic pain, but this may not occur in many scenarios2,3. The first four rules, however, seem to primarily reinforce the lesion at the top as the primary driver of pain, central sensitization, and the development of a nociplastic profile, by suggesting that other pain processes should only be assessed after initially targeting the lesion.One of the core messages of our article is to encourage clinicians to move beyond a purely peripheral-first framework4. Pain in endometriosis likely results from a mosaic of processes that can precede, amplify, or outweigh the role of lesions in the development and severity of chronic pain; consequently, the proposed rules may contribute to mechanistic clinical reasoning regarding prior hormonal exposure, rather than offering a linear pathway to prospective insight. Nociplastic pain—a pattern not justified by a peripheral nociceptive and neuropathic components—can emerge in the presence of endometriotic foci. The clinical trap lies in allowing the lesion to capture all of the clinician’s attention, even when it may function more as an “innocent bystander” than a primary driver of pain, with central top-down processes already predominant3. Keeping classification criteria and other contributing factors in mind during assessment—whether in first episodes or chronic scenarios—can support this inference without delaying broader clinical reasoning in favor of pharmacological testing, particularly because such testing cannot substitute for direct assessment against formal criteria.Effective pain management requires recognizing and addressing broader contributors beyond endometriotic lesions early, shifting from a condition- to a person-centered approach. Achieving meaningful, lasting improvement may be better supported by integrating therapeutic strategies targeting relevant inferred processes, without necessarily relying on time-consuming or resource-intensive individual therapies. Exploring group-based interventions targeting interacting transdiagnostic processes may offer a more feasible, holistic alternative—an approach we are currently investigating5.Finally, we reaffirm the need to expand clinical reasoning: to remain attentive to the evolving pain classification frameworks, to recognize the full spectrum of pain contributors, and to cultivate the skills needed to identify them in clinical practice. This also calls for acknowledging the limits of our own disciplinary training and embracing horizontal, transdisciplinary collaboration across all members of the care team.References1. Vercellini P, Cetera GE, Salmeri N, Viganò P, Somigliana E. Endometriosis and contemporary pain science: Five “simple rules” for managing symptoms with different neurobiological mechanisms. BJOG. 2025 Apr 28 [cited 2025 Apr 29]; Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.182012. As-Sanie S, Till SR, Schrepf AD, Griffith KC, Tsodikov A, Missmer SA, et al. Incidence and predictors of persistent pelvic pain following hysterectomy in women with chronic pelvic pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Nov;225(5):568.e1–568.e11. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.0383. Kaplan CM, Kelleher E, Irani A, Schrepf A, Clauw DJ, Harte SE. Deciphering nociplastic pain: clinical features, risk factors and potential mechanisms. Nat Rev Neurol. 2024 May 16; Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41582-024-00966-84. Moreira M de F, Oliveira MAP. Bringing endometriosis to the road of contemporary pain science. BJOG. 2025 Feb 5; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39905907/5. Moreira M de F, Oliveira MAP. Exploring the Immediate Effects of an Online Self-Regulation Intervention on Pain, Affect, and Arousal in Women with Endometriosis: An Observational Study Protocol. 2025. Available from: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-5969427/v1