Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Stimulated Serum Estradiol Measurements for the Prediction of Hyperresponse to Ovarian Stimulation in in Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose: In ovarian stimulation an exaggerated ovarian response is often seen and is related to medical complications, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and increased patient discomfort. If it were possible to identify hyperresponders at an early stage of the stimulation phase, adaptation of the stimulation protocol would become feasible to minimize potential complications. Therefore, we studied the usefulness of measuring stimulated serum estradiol (E 2) levels in predicting ovarian hyperresponse.

Methods: A total of 109 patients undergoing their first IVF treatment cycle using a long protocol with GnRH agonist was prospectively included. The E 2 level was evaluated on day 3 and 5 of the stimulation phase. Two outcome measures were defined. The first was ovarian hyperresponse (collection of ≥15 oocytes at retrieval and/or peak E 2 >10000 pmol/L, or cancellation due to ≥30 follicles growing and/or peak E 2 >15000 pmol/L, or OHSS developed). The second outcome measure comprised a subgroup representing the more severe hyperresponders, named extreme-response (cancellation or OHSS developed).

Results: The data of 108 patients were analyzed. The predictive accuracy of E 2 measured on stimulation day 3 towards ovarian hyperresponse was clearly lower than that of E 2 measured on stimulation day 5 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROCAUC) 0.75 and 0.81, respectively). For extreme-response the predictive accuracy of E 2 measured on stimulation day 3 or 5 was comparable (ROCAUC 0.81 and 0.82, respectively). For both outcome measures the stimulated E 2 tests yielded only acceptable specificity with moderate sensitivity at higher cutoff levels. Prediction of extreme-response seemed slightly more effective due to a lower error rate.

Conclusions: There is a significant predictive association between E 2 levels measured on stimulation day 3 and 5 and both ovarian hyperresponse and extreme-response in IVF. However, the clinical value of stimulated E 2 levels for the prediction of hyperresponse is low because of the modest sensitivity and the high false positive rate. For the prediction of extreme-response the clinical value of stimulated E 2 levels is moderate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morris RS, Paulson RJ, Sauer MV, Lobo RA: Predictive value of serum estradiol concentrations and oocyte number in severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod 1995;10:811-814

    Google Scholar 

  2. Delvigne A, Vandromme J, Barlow P, Lejeune B, Leroy F: Are there predictive criteria of complicated ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF? Hum Reprod 1991;6:959-962

    Google Scholar 

  3. Navot D, Bergh PA, Laufer N: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in novel reproductive technologies: Prevention and treatment. Fertil Steril 1992;58:249-261

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brinsden PR, Wada I, Tan SL, Balen A, Jacobs HS: Diagnosis, prevention and management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:767-772

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kligman I, Rosenwaks Z: Differentiating clinical profiles: Predicting good responders, poor responders, and hyperresponders. Fertil Steril 2001;76:1185-1190

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pena JE, Chang PL, Chan LK, Zeitoun K, Thornton MH, Sauer MV: Supraphysiological estradiol levels do not affect oocyte and embryo quality in oocyte donation cycles. Hum Reprod 2002;17:83-87

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tarin JJ, Sampaio MC, Calatayud C, Castellvi RM, Bonilla-Musoles F, Pellicer A: Relativity of the concept 'high responder to gonadotrophins.' Hum Reprod 1992;7:19-22

    Google Scholar 

  8. Simon C, Garcia Velasco JJ, Valbuena D, Peinado JA, Moreno C, Remohi J, Pellicer A: Increasing uterine receptivity by decreasing estradiol levels during the preimplantation period in high responders with the use of a follicle-stimulating hormone step-down regimen. Fertil Steril 1998;70:234-239

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ertzeid G, Storeng R: The impact of ovarian stimulation on implantation and fetal development in mice. Hum Reprod 2001;16:221-225

    Google Scholar 

  10. Agrawal R, Tan SL, Wild S, Sladkevicius P, Engmann L, Payne N, Bekir J, Campbell S, Conway G, Jacobs H: Serum vascular endothelial growth factor concentrations in in vitro fertilization cycles predict the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 1999;71:287-293

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eldar-Geva T, Margalioth EJ, Ben Chetrit A, Gal M, Robertson DM, Healy DL, Diamant YZ, Spitz IM: Serum inhibin B levels measured early during FSH administration for IVF may be of value in predicting the number of oocytes to be retrieved in normal and low responders. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2331-2337

    Google Scholar 

  12. Enskog A, Nilsson L, Brannstrom M: Peripheral blood concentrations of inhibin B are elevated during gonadotrophin stimulation in patients who later develop ovarian OHSS and inhibin A concentrations are elevated after OHSS onset. Hum Reprod 2000;15:532-538

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fawzy M, Lambert A, Harrison RF, Knight PG, Groome N, Hennelly B, Robertson WR: Day 5 inhibin B levels in a treatment cycle are predictive of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1535-1543

    Google Scholar 

  14. Phelps JY, Levine AS, Hickman TN, Zacur HA, Wallach EE, Hinton EL: Day 4 estradiol levels predict pregnancy success in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF. Fertil Steril 1998;69:1015-1019

    Google Scholar 

  15. van Kooij RJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, Dorland M, te Velde ER: Age-dependent decrease in embryo implantation rate after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1996;66:769-775

    Google Scholar 

  16. Navot D, Bergh PA: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A practical approach. In Ovarian Endocrinopathies. The proceedings of the 8th Reinier de Graaf Symposium, Amsterdam 2-4 September 1993, pp. 215-225

  17. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fauser BC, Devroey P, Yen SS, Gosden R, Crowley WF Jr, Baird DT, Bouchard P: Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: Appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2681-2686

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hohmann FP, Macklon NS, Fauser BC: A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:166-173

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tomas C, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Martikainen H: Pretreatment transvaginal ultrasound examination predicts ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophins in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997;12:220-223

    Google Scholar 

  21. Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, Jong FH, Themmen AP: Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels: A novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 2002;17:3065-3071

    Google Scholar 

  22. Danninger B, Brunner M, Obruca A, Feichtinger W: Prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome by ultrasound volumetric assessment of baseline ovarian volume prior to stimulation. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1597-1599

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dor J, Shulman A, Levran D, Ben Rafael Z, Rudak E, Mashiach S: The treatment of patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome by in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: A comparison of results with those of patients with tubal infertility. Hum Reprod 1990;5:816-818

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    D. J. Hendriks, E. R. Klinkert, L. F. J. M. M. Bancsi & J. D. F. Habbema

  2. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    C. W. N. Looman, E. R. te Velde & F. J. Broekmans

Authors
  1. D. J. Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. R. Klinkert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. F. J. M. M. Bancsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. W. N. Looman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. D. F. Habbema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. R. te Velde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. F. J. Broekmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. J. Hendriks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hendriks, D.J., Klinkert, E.R., Bancsi, L.F.J.M.M. et al. Use of Stimulated Serum Estradiol Measurements for the Prediction of Hyperresponse to Ovarian Stimulation in in Vitro Fertilization (IVF). J Assist Reprod Genet 21, 65–72 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JARG.0000027016.65749.ad

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JARG.0000027016.65749.ad

Search

Navigation