nach oben

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Erschienen in:

01.06.2014 | Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine

Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response

verfasst von: Birol Vural, Yigit Cakiroglu, Fisun Vural, Serdar Filiz

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 6/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Success rates of any artificial reproduction techniques depend on a correct protocol for ovarian stimulation. This can be decided only by proper assessment of ovarian reserve before commencing ovarian stimulation. This study has been conducted to investigate the role of hormonal and functional biomarkers in the prediction of ovarian response.

Methods

A total of 689 women between July 2012 and July 2013 undergoing IVF at Kocaeli University have been enrolled in the study. Patients have been categorized into three groups according to the number of oocytes retrieved: 0–3 oocytes (poor responders), 4–15 oocytes (normoresponders), and >16 oocytes (hyperresponders). Groups have been compared according to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), E2, luteinizing hormone (LH) levels, antral follicle counts, and E2 levels on hCG days. Furthermore, regression analysis has been performed with parameters such as age, FSH, LH, E2, anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle counts (AFC) that can affect the total number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates and their interactions with each other have been investigated.

Results

FSH, age, hCG day LH level, cycle cancellation rate, total gonadotropin dose were significantly higher in the poor responder group, but in this group, AFC, AMH, hCG day E2 level, and the number of MII oocytes were significantly lower. Cut-off values of normal responders for FSH, AMH, and AFC were 8.43 area under curve [AUC: 0.541 (0.491–0.590)], 0.62 [AUC: 0.704 (0.638–0.764)], and 6 [AUC: 0.715 (0.667–0.760)], respectively. Cut-off values for the absolute poor response group (cycle cancellation) were 12.75 for FSH [AUC: 0.533 (0.49–0.57)], 0.23 for AMH [AUC: 0.678 (0.618–0.733)], and 6 for AFC [AUC: 0.576 (0.531–0.613)]. AMH and AFC were the best markers for the prediction of total oocyte count, independent of age, FSH, and LH levels.

Conclusions

AMH and AFC were found to be the best ovarian reserve tests that can determine the total oocyte count retrieved, without any significant effects on pregnancy rates.

Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB (2006) A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 12(6):685–718PubMedCrossRef

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. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.008 PubMedCrossRef

Yang YS, Hur MH, Kim SY, Young K (2011) Correlation between sonographic and endocrine markers of ovarian aging as predictors for late menopausal transition. Menopause 18(2):138–145PubMed

Majumder K, Gelbaya TA, Laing I, Nardo LG (2010) The use of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count to predict the potential of oocytes and embryos. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150(2):166–170. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.029 PubMedCrossRef

Kalaiselvi VS, P S, K P, Krishna GP (2012) The anti mullerian hormone—a novel marker for assessing the ovarian reserve in women with regular menstrual cycles. J Clin Diagn Res 6(10):1636–1639

Panchal S, Nagori C (2012) Comparison of anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count for assessment of ovarian reserve. J Hum Reprod Sci 5(3):274–278PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Sahmay S, Cetin M, Ocal P, Kaleli S, Senol H, Birol F, Irez T (2011) Serum anti-Müllerian hormone level as a predictor of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization patients. Reprod Med Biol 10:9–14CrossRef

Himabindu Y, Sriharibabu M, Gopinathan K, Satish U, Louis TF, Gopinath P (2013) Anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproduction. J Hum Reprod Sci 6(1):27–31. doi:10.4103/0974-1208.112377 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, Mitchell P, Ambrose P, Fleming R (2009) Anti-Müllerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod 24(4):867–875. doi:10.1093/humrep/den480 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Fiçicioglu C, Kutlu T, Baglam E, Bakacak Z (2006) Early follicular antimüllerian hormone as an indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 85(3):592–596PubMedCrossRef

11.

Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Ezcurra D (2012) Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 10(9):1–9

12.

Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ (2009) The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 91:705–714PubMedCrossRef

13.

Celik H, Bıldırcın D, Güven D, Cetinkaya MB, Alper T, Batuoğlu AS (2012) Random anti-Müllerian hormone predicts ovarian response in women with high baseline follicle-stimulating hormone levels: anti-Müllerian hormone in poor responders in assisted reproductive treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet 29(8):797–802. doi:10.1007/s10815-012-9794-y (Epub 2012 May 10)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

14.

La Marca A (2013) Whatever its variability, antimüllerian hormone remains the most stable hormonal predictor. Fertil Steril 100(1):e1. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.010 PubMedCrossRef

15.

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

16.

Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G (2006) Basal level of anti-Müllerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 21(8):2022–2026PubMedCrossRef

17.

Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, Sathanandan M (2004) Inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients? BJOG 111(11):1248–1253PubMedCrossRef

18.

Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, Laing I (2009) Circulating basal anti- Müllerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 92(5):1586–1593. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.127 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Nakhuda GS, Sauer MV, Wang JG, Ferin M, Lobo RA (2007) Müllerian inhibiting substance is an accurate marker of ovarian response in women of advanced reproductive age undergoing IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 14(4):450–454PubMedCrossRef

20.

La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, Volpe A (2007) Anti-Müllerian hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod 22(3):766–771PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ben-Haroush A, Farhi J, Zahalka Y, Sapir O, Meizner I, Fisch B (2012) Correlations between antral follicle count and ultrasonographic ovarian parameters and clinical variables and outcomes in IVF cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol 28(6):432–435PubMedCrossRef

22.

Melo MA, Garrido N, Alvarez C, Bellver J, Meseguer M, Pellicer A, Remohí J (2009) Antral follicle count (AFC) can be used in the prediction of ovarian response but cannot predict the oocyte/embryo quality or the in vitro fertilization outcome in an egg donation program. Fertil Steril 91(1):148–156. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.042 PubMedCrossRef

23.

Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT, Segars JH (2003) A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 80(2):350–355PubMedCrossRef

24.

Van Disseldorp J, Lambalk CB, Kwee J, Looman CW, Eijkemans MJ, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ (2010) Comparison of inter- and intra-cycle variability of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle counts. Hum Reprod 25(1):221–227. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep366 PubMedCrossRef

25.

Panchal S, Nagori C (2012) Comparison of anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count for assessment of ovarian reserve. J Hum Reprod Sci 5(3):274–278. doi:10.4103/0974-1208.106340 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Nahum R, Shifren JL, Chang Y, Leykin L, Isaacson K, Toth TL (2001) Antral follicle assessment as a tool for predicting outcome in IVF—is it a better predictor than age and FSH? J Assist Reprod Genet 18(3):151–155PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

27.

Kunt C, Ozaksit G, Keskin Kurt R, Cakir Gungor AN, Kanat-Pektas M, Kilic S, Dede A (2011) 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(6):1415–1421. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-1889-7 PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response
verfasst von: Birol Vural
Yigit Cakiroglu
Fisun Vural
Serdar Filiz
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3132-1

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hirsutismus bei PCOS: Laser- und Lichttherapien helfen

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Update Gynäkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2014

The effects of antenatal corticosteroids therapy on very preterm infants after chorioamnionitis

Immunohistochemical expression of p16 and HPV L1 capsid proteins as predictive markers in cervical lesions

Response to: Chlamydia trachomatis, human papillomavirus, bacterial vaginosis and cervical neoplasia

Using a search-volume tool (Google Trends) to assess global interest for uterine fibroids

Feasibility and first long-term results after laparoscopic rectal segment resection and vaginal specimen retrieval for deep infiltrating endometriosis

Association between fragile X premutation and premature ovarian failure: a case–control study and meta-analysis

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hirsutismus bei PCOS: Laser- und Lichttherapien helfen

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Update Gynäkologie