INTRODUCTION: This retrospective study aimed at analyzing IVF-ET management and outcome after cancellation of a first cycle for poor response. PATIENTS AND METHOD: One hundred and forty-two infertile patients were included in this observational study. After an overall analysis on the outcome of the second IVF-ET attempt, a sub-analysis was performed according to the presence or the absence of poor prognostic criteria defined as mentioned: patient age superior to 38 years old, antral follicle count (3-9 mm in diameter) inferior to 10 on cycle day 3 and day 3 serum AMH and FSH levels less than 1 ng/mL and more than 10 IU/mL, respectively. Main outcome measures were the cancellation rates, pregnancy and live birth rates. RESULTS: When a controlled ovarian stimulation was performed, patients with poor prognosis had higher cancellation rates (37.8% vs. 13.3%, P<0.004) and lower pregnancy and live birth rates (22.2% vs. 35.0%, P<0.05 and 11.1% vs. 26.1%, P<0.05, respectively) as compared to good prognosis women. CONCLUSION: The relatively high cancellation rate in patients with poor prognosis raises the question of the use of IVF modified natural cycle in this group.
INTRODUCTION: This retrospective study aimed at analyzing IVF-ET management and outcome after cancellation of a first cycle for poor response. PATIENTS AND METHOD: One hundred and forty-two infertilepatients were included in this observational study. After an overall analysis on the outcome of the second IVF-ET attempt, a sub-analysis was performed according to the presence or the absence of poor prognostic criteria defined as mentioned: patient age superior to 38 years old, antral follicle count (3-9 mm in diameter) inferior to 10 on cycle day 3 and day 3 serum AMH and FSH levels less than 1 ng/mL and more than 10 IU/mL, respectively. Main outcome measures were the cancellation rates, pregnancy and live birth rates. RESULTS: When a controlled ovarian stimulation was performed, patients with poor prognosis had higher cancellation rates (37.8% vs. 13.3%, P<0.004) and lower pregnancy and live birth rates (22.2% vs. 35.0%, P<0.05 and 11.1% vs. 26.1%, P<0.05, respectively) as compared to good prognosis women. CONCLUSION: The relatively high cancellation rate in patients with poor prognosis raises the question of the use of IVF modified natural cycle in this group.