Skip to main content

Anti-Mullerian hormone is a better marker than inhibin B, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol or antral follicle count in predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 283, pages 1415–1421 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The present study aims to compare anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) with other ovarian reserve markers and to find a cut-off value of AMH for predicting ovarian response towards controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) program.

Materials and methods

A prospective analysis was performed in 180 patients undergoing their first IVF trial, which is being conducted at a department of assisted reproduction in a tertiary medical center. The main outcome measures were determined as age and antral follicle count as well as the serum concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol (E2), inhibin B and AMH. The predictive power of the aforementioned measures in specifying ovarian response was determined by means of discriminate analyses.

Results

As expected, day 3 LH levels were significantly high in the poor responder group. The poor responders had significantly lower antral follicle counts, retrieved oocyte number, and mature oocyte counts as well as day 3 AMH levels (5.8 ± 2.32 vs. 1.8 ± 0.80 ng/ml).

There was a positive correlation with antral follicle count, basal AMH, E2 and follicle count on the day of HCG administration and negative correlation with age. The AMH level was addressed as the only significant factor in determination of mature oocyte number. A cut-off point for serum AMH concentration indicating the value of 2.97 ng/ml was found to predict the poor ovarian response with a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 89.6%. However, the same cut-off point was not as predictive for the non-conception circumstance.

Conclusion

The present study concludes that AMH is a promising biochemical marker for the prediction of ovarian response and that a cut-off point indicating the value of 2.97 ng/ml can be adopted for this prediction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. La Marca A, Broekmans FJ, Volpe A, Fauser BC, Macklon NS (2009) Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know? ESHRE Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology—AMH Round Table. Hum Reprod 24(9):2264–2275

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Skalba P, Cygal A, Dabkowska-Huć A (2008) The influence of anti-Mullerian hormone on folliculogenesis. Ginekol Pol 79(2):137–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weenen C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, Visser JA et al (2004) Anti-Mullerian hormone expression pattern in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle recruitment. Mol Hum Reprod 10:77–83

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Coccia ME, Rizzello F (2008) Ovarian reserve. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1127:27–30

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sills ES, Alper MM, Walsh AP (2009) Ovarian reserve screening in infertility: practical applications and theoretical directions for research. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 146(1):30–36

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Te Velde ER, Fauser BJ, Bancsi LF, de Jong FH, Themmen APN (2002) Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 17:3065–3071

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, de Jong FH, Fauser BJ, Themmen AP, Te Velde ER (2005) Serum anti Mullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril 83:979–987

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tremellen KP, Kolo M, Gilmore A, Lekamge DN (2005) Anti-Mullerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 45:20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Visser JA, de Jong FH, Laven JS, Themmen AP (2006) Anti-Mullerian hormone: a new marker for ovarian function. Reproduction 131:1–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fiçicioğlu C, Kutlu M, Baglam E, Bakacak Z (2006) Early follicular antimüllerian hormone as an indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 85:592–596

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Broekmans FJ, Visser JA, Laven JS, Broer SL, Themmen AP, Fauser BC (2008) Anti-müllerian hormone and ovarian dysfunction. Trends Endocrinol Metab 19(9):340–347

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kwan I, Bhattachaya S, McNeil A, van Rumste MM (2008) Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD 005289

  13. Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS, Heijnen EM, Baart EB, Hohman FP, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ (2009) The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 15(1):5–12

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Ancott L, Hamilton MP, Bhattachaya J (2010) Interventions for “poor responders” to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in in-vitro fertilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD004379

  15. Creus M, Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Vidal E (2000) Day 3 serum inhibin B and FSH and age as predictors of assisted reproduction treatment outcome. Hum Reprod 15:2341–2346

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, te Velde ER (2002) Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 77:328–336

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJM, Looman CWN, Blankeinstein M, Fauser BJM, de Jong FH, te Velde ER (2003) The number of antral follicles in normal women with proven fertility is the best reflection of reproductive age. Hum Reprod 18:700–706

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, Habbema JD, Te Velde ER (2003) Performance of basal FSH in the prediction of poor ovarian response and failure to become pregnant after IVF: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 79:1091–1100

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roberts JE, Spandorfer S, Fasouliotis SJ, Kashyap S, Rosenwaks Z (2005) Taking a basal follicle-stimulating hormone history is essential before initiating in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 83(1):37–41

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Check JH, Summers-Chase D, Yuan W, Horwath D, Wilson C (2007) Effect of embryo quality on pregnancy outcome following single embryo transfer in women with a diminished egg reserve. Fertil Steril 87(4):749–756

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Check JH (2007) Mild ovarian stimulation. J Assist Reprod Genet 24(12):621–627

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, Stabile G, Volpe A (2010) Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 16(2):113–130

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gnoth C, Schuring A, Friol K, Tigges J, Mallmann P, Godehardt E (2008) Relevance of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in a routine IVF program. Hum Reprod 23:1359–1365

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkison J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N (2010) 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 93(39):855–864

    Google Scholar 

  25. Riggs R, Kimble T, Oehninger S, Bocca S, Zhao Y, Leader B, Stadtmauer L (2010) Anti Mullerian hormone serum levels predict response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation but not embryo quality or pregnancy outcome in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. Aug 23. [Epub ahead of print]

  26. Muttukrishna S, McGarriagle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM (2005) Antral follicle count, anti-Mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology? BJOG 112:1384–1390

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Couet ML, Gerverau O, Ract V, Royère D (2009) Serum antimüllerian hormone is not predictive of oocyte quality in vitro fertilization. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 70(4):230–234

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA, Thomas CM, Broat DD (2007) Anti Mullerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 87:223–226

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Giulini S, Traglia M, Argento C, Sala C, Masciullo C, Volpe A, Toniolo D (2010) Normal serum concentrations of anti-Müllerian hormone in women with regular menstrual cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 21(4):463–469

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee TH, Liu CH, Huang CC, Hsieh KC, Lin PM, Lee MS (2009) Impact of female age and male infertility on ovarian reserve markers to predict outcome of assisted reproduction technology cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 7:100

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Arendt J, Schilling C, Peiffer M (2008) Biological parameters for evaluation of ovarian reserve and resultant anti Mullerian hormone. Bull Soc Sci Med Grand Duche Luxemb 4:497–502

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yu M, Deng CY (2009) Clinical applications of anti-Müllerian hormone in evaluating ovarian reserve functions. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 31(1):114–119

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Assisted Reproduction Technology, Dr. Zekai Tahir Burak Women Health Research and Education Hospital, Yunus Emre Mah., Dereboyu Sok. No: 71/2 Yenimahalle, 06170, Ankara, Turkey

    Cigdem Kunt, Gulnur Ozaksit, Raziye Keskin Kurt, Ayse Nur Cakir Gungor, Mine Kanat-Pektas, Sevtap Kilic & Arzu Dede

Authors
  1. Cigdem Kunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gulnur Ozaksit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raziye Keskin Kurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ayse Nur Cakir Gungor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mine Kanat-Pektas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sevtap Kilic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arzu Dede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mine Kanat-Pektas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kunt, C., Ozaksit, G., Keskin Kurt, R. et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone is a better marker than inhibin B, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol or antral follicle count in predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283, 1415–1421 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1889-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1889-7

Keywords

  • Anti-Mullerian hormone
  • In vitro fertilization
  • Ovarian reserve
  • Poor ovarian response