BACKGROUND: Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a marker of ovarian reserve status and represents a good predictor of ovarian response to ovarian hyperstimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of AMH and antral follicle count (AFC) as predictors of an excessive response in IVF/ICSI treatment. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature was performed. Studies were included if 2 × 2 tables for the outcome excessive response in IVF patients in relation to AMH/AFC could be constructed. Using a bivariate meta-analytic model, both summary point estimates for sensitivity and specificity were calculated, as well as summary ROC curves. Clinical value was analysed by calculating post-test probabilities of excessive response at optimal cut-off levels, as well as the corresponding abnormal test rates. RESULTS: Nine studies reporting on AMH and five reporting on AFC were found. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for AMH were 82 and 76%, respectively, and 82 and 80%, respectively, for AFC. Comparison of the summary estimates and ROC curves for AMH and AFC showed no statistical difference. Abnormal test rates for AMH and AFC amounted to ∼14 and 16%, respectively, at cut-off levels where test performance is optimal [likelihood ratio for a positive result (LR + ) > 8], with a post-test probability of ± 70%. CONCLUSIONS: Both AMH and AFC are accurate predictors of excessive response to ovarian hyperstimulation. Moreover, both tests appear to have clinical value. This opens ways to explore the potential of individualized FSH dose regimens based on ovarian reserve testing.
BACKGROUND: Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a marker of ovarian reserve status and represents a good predictor of ovarian response to ovarian hyperstimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of AMH and antral follicle count (AFC) as predictors of an excessive response in IVF/ICSI treatment. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature was performed. Studies were included if 2 × 2 tables for the outcome excessive response in IVFpatients in relation to AMH/AFC could be constructed. Using a bivariate meta-analytic model, both summary point estimates for sensitivity and specificity were calculated, as well as summary ROC curves. Clinical value was analysed by calculating post-test probabilities of excessive response at optimal cut-off levels, as well as the corresponding abnormal test rates. RESULTS: Nine studies reporting on AMH and five reporting on AFC were found. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for AMH were 82 and 76%, respectively, and 82 and 80%, respectively, for AFC. Comparison of the summary estimates and ROC curves for AMH and AFC showed no statistical difference. Abnormal test rates for AMH and AFC amounted to ∼14 and 16%, respectively, at cut-off levels where test performance is optimal [likelihood ratio for a positive result (LR + ) > 8], with a post-test probability of ± 70%. CONCLUSIONS: Both AMH and AFC are accurate predictors of excessive response to ovarian hyperstimulation. Moreover, both tests appear to have clinical value. This opens ways to explore the potential of individualized FSH dose regimens based on ovarian reserve testing.
Authors: Carolina P Rezende; Ana L Rocha; Cynthia Dela Cruz; Lavinia E Borges; Helen L Del Puerto; Fernando M Reis Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2014-07-12 Impact factor: 3.412