| Literature DB >> 21843363 |
Robert K K Lee1, Frank S Y Wu, Ming-Huei Lin, Shyr-Yeu Lin, Yuh-Ming Hwu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) as predictor of in-vitro fertilization outcomes has been much debated. The aim of the present study is to investigate the practicability of combining serum AMH level with biological age as a simple screening method for counseling IVF candidates of advanced reproductive age with potential poor outcomes prior to treatment initiation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21843363 PMCID: PMC3175456 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-9-115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol ISSN: 1477-7827 Impact factor: 5.211
The age-related distribution chart of serum AMH level (ng/mL) for reference infertility patients
| Age | Mean ± SD | 5th centile | 10th centile | 25th centile | Median | 75th centile | 90th centile | 95th centile | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.07 ± 1.98 | 1.74 | 1.88 | 2.61 | 3.38 | 5.46 | 7.12 | 8.57 | 36 | |
| 3.82 ± 1.93 | 0.30 | 1.39 | 2.45 | 3.43 | 5.17 | 6.42 | 7.60 | 30 | |
| 4.41 ± 2.01 | 0.77 | 1.80 | 2.78 | 4.47 | 5.75 | 7.33 | 7.70 | 45 | |
| 3.79 ± 1.09 | 1.08 | 1.41 | 2.27 | 3.48 | 5.31 | 6.74 | 7.16 | 70 | |
| 3.77 ± 1.96 | 1.03 | 1.15 | 2.26 | 3.38 | 5.52 | 6.57 | 6.90 | 82 | |
| 3.61 ± 2.14 | 0.83 | 1.23 | 1.81 | 3.20 | 4.84 | 6.85 | 7.68 | 104 | |
| 3.80 ± 2.08 | 0.68 | 1.11 | 2.23 | 3.62 | 5.21 | 6.97 | 7.68 | 127 | |
| 3.29 ± 1.90 | 0.88 | 1.09 | 1.66 | 2.91 | 4.63 | 5.97 | 6.80 | 129 | |
| 2.81 ± 1.99 | 0.53 | 0.75 | 1.24 | 2.35 | 3.78 | 6.01 | 7.18 | 149 | |
| 3.15 ± 1.89 | 0.67 | 0.83 | 1.70 | 2.83 | 4.51 | 5.79 | 6.57 | 104 | |
| 3.08 ± 1.83 | 0.81 | 1.06 | 1.33 | 2.77 | 4.38 | 5.40 | 6.57 | 86 | |
| 2.61 ± 1.65 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 1.12 | 2.47 | 3.49 | 5.12 | 5.67 | 69 | |
| 2.03 ± 1.40 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.88 | 1.91 | 2.94 | 3.87 | 4.64 | 73 | |
| 1.45 ± 1.35 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.48 | 1.07 | 2.02 | 3.14 | 4.65 | 56 | |
| 1.68 ± 1.36 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.63 | 1.42 | 2.41 | 3.65 | 4.20 | 126 | |
| 1.18 ± 1.32 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.86 | 1.35 | 3.04 | 3.48 | 88 | |
| 0.91 ± 0.97 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.60 | 1.24 | 2.34 | 3.53 | 47 | |
| 0.79 ± 0.77 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.63 | 1.50 | 2.09 | 2.48 | 43 | |
| 0.69 ± 0.61 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.52 | 0.98 | 1.36 | 2.36 | 32 | |
| 0.66 ± 0.66 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.54 | 0.67 | 1.12 | 2.73 | 26 | |
| 0.50 ± 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.52 | 0.81 | 1.11 | 1.14 | 16 | |
| 2.71 ± 2.04 | 0.14 | 0.40 | 0.65 | 2.36 | 3.09 | 5.78 | 6.82 | 1538 | |
| 1.17 ± 1.99 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.32 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 2.91 | 3.53 | 378 |
Outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles in women of advanced reproductive age (≥ 40 years old)
| Serum AMH tertiles (ng/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total subjects | Low | Middle | High | |
| 116 | 21 | 38 | 57 | |
| 17 (14.7) | 10 (47.6)§ | 6 (15.7)* | 1 (1.7) | |
| 41.5 ± 1.4 | 42.8 ± 2.3 | 41.1 ± 1.3 | 41.3 ± 1.4 | |
| 1542.1 ± 1146.5 | 802.6 ± 748.9 | 1050 ± 699 | 2095.8 ± 1156.2 | |
| 6.1 ± 4.6 | 2.4 ± 2.9 | 4.7 ± 2.5 | 8.1 ± 5.1 | |
| 4.7 ± 3.7 | 1.5 ± 1.73 | 3.9 ± 2.5 | 6.3 ± 3.9 | |
| 3.8 ± 2.9 | 1.8 ± 2.4 | 3.1 ± 2.2 | 4.8 ± 3.1 | |
| 2.8 ± 1.2 | 1.6 ± 1.3 | 2.6 ± 1.0 | 3.2 ± 1.0 | |
| 26 (22.4) | 0 (0)§ | 9 (23.7) | 17 (29.8) | |
| 7 (26.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 7 (41.2) | |
| 19 (16.4) | 0 (0)﹟ | 9 (23.7) | 10 (17.5) | |
§ p < 0.05 compared with the middle tertile and the high tertile
*p < 0.05 compared with the high tertile
﹟p < 0.05 compared with the middle tertile
Prediction of cycle cancellation and nonpregnancy by serum AMH levels in women of advanced reproductive age (≥ 40 years old)
| Cut-off AMH level (ng/mL) | ROCAUC | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Significance level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.68 | 0.77 | 64.7 | 85.1 | 47.8 | 92.0 | p = 0.0001 | |
| 1.05 | 0.65 | 42.7 | 86.9 | 91.4 | 31.7 | p = 0.022 |