Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles
- 731 Downloads
To determine the predictive value of serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations and antral follicle counts (AFC), on ovarian response and live birth rates after IVF and compare with age and basal FSH.
Basal levels of AMH, FSH and antral follicle count were measured in 192 patients prior to IVF treatment. The predictive value of these parameters were evaluated in terms of retrieved oocyte number and live birth rates.
Poor responders in IVF were older, had lower AFC and AMH but higher basal FSH levels. In multivariate analysis AFC was the best and only independent parameter among other parameters and AMH was better than age and basal FSH to predict poor response to ovarian stimulation. Addition of AMH, basal FSH, age and total gonadotropin dose to AFC did not improve its prognostic reliability. Area under curve (AUC) for each parameter according to ROC analysis also revealed that AFC performed better in poor response prediction compared with AMH, basal FSH and age. The cut-off point for mean AMH and AFC in discriminating the best between poor and normal ovarian response cycles was 0.94 ng/mL (with a sensitivity of 70 % and a specificity of 86 %) and 5.5 (with a sensitivity of 91 % and a specificity of 91 %), respectively. However, age was the only independent predictor of live birth in IVF as compared to hormonal and ultrasound indices of ovarian reserve.
AFC is better than AMH to predict poor ovarian response. Although AMH and AFC could be used to predict ovarian response they had limited value in live birth prediction. The only significant predictor of the probability of achieving a live birth was age.
KeywordsAnti-müllerian hormone Antral follicle counts Ovarian response Live birth
This research received funding from the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Gazi University (grant 01/2005-2).
- 5.Bersinger NA, Wunder D, Birkhauser MH, Guibourdenche J. Measurement of anti-mullerian hormone by Beckman Coulter ELISA and DSL ELISA in assisted reproduction: differences between serum and follicular fluid. Clin Chim Acta Int J Clin Chem. 2007;384(1–2):174–5. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2007.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Updat. 2013;19(1):26–36. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Buyuk E, Seifer DB, Younger J, Grazi RV, Lieman H. Random anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a predictor of ovarian response in women with elevated baseline early follicular follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2369–72. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.071.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(11):3178–83. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dei203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Elgindy EA, El-Haieg DO, El-Sebaey A. Anti-Mullerian hormone: correlation of early follicular, ovulatory and midluteal levels with ovarian response and cycle outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1670–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Freour T, Mirallie S, Bach-Ngohou K, Denis M, Barriere P, Masson D. Measurement of serum anti-Mullerian hormone by Beckman Coulter ELISA and DSL ELISA: comparison and relevance in assisted reproduction technology (ART). Clin Chim Acta Int J Clin Chem. 2007;375(1–2):162–4. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2006.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N. A prospective, comparative analysis of anti-Mullerian hormone, inhibin-B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):855–64. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.042.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. The antral follicle count is a better marker than basal follicle-stimulating hormone for the selection of older patients with acceptable pregnancy prospects after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):811–4. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.11.005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):766–71. doi: 10.1093/humrep/del421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM, Serhal P. Antral follicle count, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology? BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(10):1384–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00670.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, et al. Circulating basal anti-Mullerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1586–93. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Manau D, Creus M, Casals G, Casamitjana R, et al. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Mullerian hormone serum concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist--gonadotropin treatmen. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):915–22. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh718.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Riggs RM, Duran EH, Baker MW, Kimble TD, Hobeika E, Yin L, et al. Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Mullerian hormone: a comparison of the predictive value of anti-Mullerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, and age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(2):202. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.05.004. e201-208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Habbema JD, Looman CW, Te Velde ER. Quantitative transvaginal two- and three-dimensional sonography of the ovaries: reproducibility of antral follicle counts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20(3):270–5. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00787.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA, Thomas CM, Braat DD. Antimullerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):223–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.06.019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64.Yong PY, Baird DT, Thong KJ, McNeilly AS, Anderson RA. Prospective analysis of the relationships between the ovarian follicle cohort and basal FSH concentration, the inhibin response to exogenous FSH and ovarian follicle number at different stages of the normal menstrual cycle and after pituitary down-regulation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(1):35–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar