Are ovarian reserve tests reliable in predicting ovarian response? Results from a prospective, cross-sectional, single-center analysis

References

• Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, et al. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):324–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elchalal U, Schenker J. The pathophysiology of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome-views and ideas. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(6):1129–1137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauser BC, Devroey P, Yen SS, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(11):2681–2686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming R, Broekmans F, Calhaz-Jorge C, et al. Can anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations be used to determine gonadotrophin dose and treatment protocol for ovarian stimulation? Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(5):431–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tal R, Seifer DB. Ovarian reserve testing: a user's guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(2):129–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Ver. 2009;30(5):465–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira JB, Baruffi RL, Petersen CG, et al. A new ovarian response prediction index (ORPI): implications for individualised controlled ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10(1):94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, 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 Update. 2013;19(1):26–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te Velde ER, Pearson PL. The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(2):141–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selcuk S, Bilgic BE, Kilicci C, et al. Comparison of ovarian responsiveness tests with outcome of assisted reproductive technology—a retrospective analysis. Arch Med Sci. 2018;14(4):851–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International evidence based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Copyright Monash University, Melbourne Australia 2018; [cited 2020 May 20]. Available from: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1412644/PCOS_Evidence-Based-Guidelines_20181009.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, et al. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):1044–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa CP, Cordts B, Costa C, et al. Low dose of rFSH [100 IU] in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation response: a pilot study. J Ovarian Res. 2014;7:11–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles . Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1768–1774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grynberg M, Labrosse J. Understanding Follicular Output Rate (FORT) and its implications for POSEIDON criteria. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geva E, Jaffe RB. Role of vascular endothelial growth factor in ovarian physiology and pathology. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(3):429–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budev MM, Arroliga AC, Falcone T. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(10 Suppl):S301–S306.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen CD, Wu MY, Chao KH, et al. Update on management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;50(1):2–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoo ZH, Candlish J, Teare D. What is an ROC curve? Emerg Med J. 2017;34(6):357–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biljan MM, Buckett WM, Dean N, et al. The outcome of ıvf-embryo transfer treatment in patients who develop three folliclesor less. Human Reprod. 2000;15(10):2140–2144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inge GB, Brinsden PR, Elder KT. Oocyte number per live birth in ıvf: were steptoe and edwards less wasteful? Human Reprod. 2005;20(3):588–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks DJ, Velde ER, Looman CW, et al. Expected poor ovarian response in predicting cumulative pregnancy rates: a powerful tool. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(5):727–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin PY, Huang FJ, Kung FT, et al. Evaluation of serum anti-Mullerian hormone as a biomarker of early ovarian aging in young women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycle. Inter J Clin Exp Pathol. 2014;7:6245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles–implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2414–2421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Marca A, Nelson SM, Sighinolfi G, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based prediction model for a live birth in assisted reproduction . Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22(4):341–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, et al. Inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients? BJOG. 2004;111(11):1248–1253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rustamov O, Smith A, Roberts SA, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone: poor assay reproducibility in a large cohort of subjects suggests sample instability. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):3085–3091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grynnerup AG, Løssl K, Pilsgaard F, et al. Prediction of the lower serum anti-Müllerian hormone threshold for ovarian stimulation prior to in-vitro fertilization using the Elecsys® AMH assay: a prospective observational study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17(1):11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ashrafi M, Hemat M, Arabipoor A, et al. Predictive values of anti-Mullerian hormone, antral follicle count and ovarian response prediction index (ORPI) for assisted reproductive technology outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(1):82–88.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scheffer JAB, Scheffer B, Scheffer R, et al. Are age and anti-Mullerian hormone good predictors of ovarian reserve and response in women undergoing IVF? JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018;22:215–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldeen P, Källen K, Sundström P. The probability of successtul IVF outcome after poor ovarian response. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(4):457–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelli A, Biasoni V, Gennarelli G, et al. IVF results in patients with very low sérum AMH are significantly affected by chronological age. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(5):603–609.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laven JS, Mulders AG, Visser JÁ, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone sérum concentrations in normoovulatory women of reproductive age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89(1):318–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freour T, Mirallié S, Colombel A, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone: clinical relevance in assisted reproductive therapy. Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2006;67(6):567–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eldar-Geva T, Margalioth EJ, Gal M, et al. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with polycystic ovaries with and without hyperandrogenism. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(7):1814–1819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broer SL, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, et al. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):46–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui Q, Anjum FZ, Zahra F, et al. Ovarian reserve parameters and response to controlled ovarian stimulation in infertile patients. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(4):958–962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peñarrubia J, Fábregues F, Manau D, 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 treatment . Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):915–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiçicioglu C, Kutlu T, Baglam E, et al. Early follicular antimüllerian hormone as an indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):592–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):602–610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peluso C, Fonseca FL, Gastaldo GG, et al. AMH and AMHR2 polymorphisms and AMH serum level can predict assisted reproduction outcomes: a cross-sectional study. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2015;35(4):1401–1412.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Broer SL, Broekmans FJ, Laven JS, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):688–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asada Y, Morimoto Y, Nakaoka Y, et al. Age-specific serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentration in Japanese women and its usefulness as a predictor of the ovarian response. Reprod Med Biol. 2017;16(4):364–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwee J, Schats R, Mcdonnell J, et al. Evaluation of anti-Müllerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve . Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):737–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himabindu Y, Sriharibabu M, Gopinathan K, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproduction. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6(1):27–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, et al. 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 . J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(5):657–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, et al. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):685–718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broer SL, Mol BWJ, Hendriks D, et al. The role of antiMullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):705–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broer SL, Dolleman M, van Disseldorp J, et al. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):420–429.e7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, et al. The predictive accuracy of anti-Müllerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):560–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(1):124–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, et al. 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):855–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bukulmez O, Arici A. Assessment of ovarian reserve. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2004;16(3):231–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, et al. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3103–3107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Defining ovarian reserve to better understand ovarian aging. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Azemi M, Killick SR, Duffy S, et al. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Human Reprod. 2011;26(2):414–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rustamov O, Pemberton PW, Roberts SA, et al. The reproducibility of serum anti-Müllerian hormone in subfertile women: within and between patient variability . Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):1185–1187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace AM, Faye SA, Fleming R, et al. A multicentre evaluation of the new Beckman Coulter anti-Mullerian hormone immunoassay (AMH Gen II). Ann Clin Biochem. 2011;48(Pt 4):370–373.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peluso C, Fonseca FLA, Rodart IR, et al. AMH: an ovarian reserve biomarker in assisted reproduction. Clin Chim Acta. 2014;437:175–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilsgaard F, Grynnerup A, Lossl K, et al. The use of anti-Müllerian hormone for controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology, fertility assessment and -counseling. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(9):1105–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez F, Devesa M, Barri PN. Have antimüllerian hormone and antral follicle count been given the same opportunities? Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):e9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder H, Strick R, Zaherdoust O, et al. Assessment of FSHR variants and antimüllerian hormone in infertility patients with a reduced ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(5):1169–1175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tohlob D, Hashem EA, Ghareeb N, et al. Association of a promoter polymorphism in FSHR with ovarian reserve and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(3):391–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng H, Chen S, Du H, et al. Ovarian response prediction in controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF using anti-Müllerian hormone in Chinese women: a retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(13):e6495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akande VA, Fleming CF, Hunt LP, et al. Biological versus chronological ageing of oocytes, distinguishable by raised FSH levels in relation to the success of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(8):2003–2008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Howles CM, et al. Biological versus chronological ovarian age: implications for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7:101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keehn J, Holwell E, Abdul-Karim R, et al. Recruiting egg donors online: an analysis of in vitro fertilization clinic and agency websites' adherence to American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(4):995–1000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Esposito F, et al. Ovarian reserve test: an impartial means to resolve the mismatch between chronological and biological age in the assessment of female reproductive chances. Reprod Sci. 2014;21(5):632–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar