H Irene Su1, Mary D Sammel2, Michael V Homer1, Kim Bui3, Carolyn Haunschild1, Frank Z Stanczyk4. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perlman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: fstanczyk@socal.rr.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels among three commercially available AMH immunoassays: AMH Gen II (Beckman Coulter), Ultrasensitive AMH (Ansh Labs), and picoAMH (Ansh Labs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Academic reproductive endocrinology program. PATIENT(S): 90 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients before cancer treatment. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Proportion of detectable AMH levels by immunoassay, and comparability among assays. RESULT(S): At a mean age of 38.1 years, the median (interquartile range) AMH level for the cohort was 0.92 [1.35] ng/mL for the Gen II assay, 1.68 [2.30] ng/mL for the Ultrasensitive assay, and 1.52 [2.41] ng/mL for the picoAMH assay. Significantly higher proportions of detectable AMH levels were observed with the picoAMH kit (97%) compared with both the Gen II (84%) and Ultrasensitive (92%) assays. Although the AMH results were highly correlated among the assays (r = 0.92-0.99), the Gen II AMH levels were consistently lower than both Ultrasensitive and picoAMH levels. Moreover, as AMH levels increased, the magnitude of difference grew larger between Gen II and each of the other two assays. CONCLUSION(S): Measurement of AMH levels with the picoAMH kit maximized detection at very low levels, particularly in contrast with the Gen II kit. Conversion of AMH levels from different immunoassays using regression equations is potentially highly inaccurate.
OBJECTIVE: To compare antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels among three commercially available AMH immunoassays: AMH Gen II (Beckman Coulter), Ultrasensitive AMH (Ansh Labs), and picoAMH (Ansh Labs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Academic reproductive endocrinology program. PATIENT(S): 90 newly diagnosed breast cancerpatients before cancer treatment. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Proportion of detectable AMH levels by immunoassay, and comparability among assays. RESULT(S): At a mean age of 38.1 years, the median (interquartile range) AMH level for the cohort was 0.92 [1.35] ng/mL for the Gen II assay, 1.68 [2.30] ng/mL for the Ultrasensitive assay, and 1.52 [2.41] ng/mL for the picoAMH assay. Significantly higher proportions of detectable AMH levels were observed with the picoAMH kit (97%) compared with both the Gen II (84%) and Ultrasensitive (92%) assays. Although the AMH results were highly correlated among the assays (r = 0.92-0.99), the Gen II AMH levels were consistently lower than both Ultrasensitive and picoAMH levels. Moreover, as AMH levels increased, the magnitude of difference grew larger between Gen II and each of the other two assays. CONCLUSION(S): Measurement of AMH levels with the picoAMH kit maximized detection at very low levels, particularly in contrast with the Gen II kit. Conversion of AMH levels from different immunoassays using regression equations is potentially highly inaccurate.
Authors: Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Caspar W N Looman; Axel P N Themmen; Frank H de Jong; E R Te Velde; Frank J M Broekmans Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-06-27 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: A L Durlinger; P Kramer; B Karels; F H de Jong; J T Uilenbroek; J A Grootegoed; A P Themmen Journal: Endocrinology Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: R Rey; J C Sabourin; M Venara; W Q Long; F Jaubert; W P Zeller; P Duvillard; H Chemes; J M Bidart Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Christien Weenen; Joop S E Laven; Anne R M Von Bergh; Mark Cranfield; Nigel P Groome; Jenny A Visser; Piet Kramer; Bart C J M Fauser; Axel P N Themmen Journal: Mol Hum Reprod Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Hazel B Nichols; Donna D Baird; Frank Z Stanczyk; Anne Z Steiner; Melissa A Troester; Kristina W Whitworth; Dale P Sandler Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-04-14
Authors: Catherine Kim; James C Slaughter; Erica T Wang; Duke Appiah; Pamela Schreiner; Benjamin Leader; Ronit Calderon-Margalit; Barbara Sternfeld; David Siscovick; Melissa Wellons Journal: Maturitas Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: H Irene Su; Brian Kwan; Brian W Whitcomb; Ksenya Shliakhsitsava; Andrew C Dietz; Shaylyn S Stark; Elena Martinez; Patrick M Sluss; Mary D Sammel; Loki Natarajan Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Seungyoun Jung; Naomi Allen; Alan A Arslan; Laura Baglietto; Louise A Brinton; Brian L Egleston; Roni Falk; Renée T Fortner; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Annika Idahl; Rudolph Kaaks; Eva Lundin; Melissa Merritt; Charlotte Onland-Moret; Sabina Rinaldi; María-José Sánchez; Sabina Sieri; Helena Schock; Xiao-Ou Shu; Patrick M Sluss; Paul N Staats; Ruth C Travis; Anne Tjønneland; Antonia Trichopoulou; Shelley Tworoger; Kala Visvanathan; Vittorio Krogh; Elisabete Weiderpass; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Wei Zheng; Joanne F Dorgan Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Beth Zhou; Brian Kwan; Milli J Desai; Vinit Nalawade; Kathryn J Ruddy; Paul C Nathan; Henry J Henk; James D Murphy; Brian W Whitcomb; H Irene Su Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 7.490
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Mindy S Christianson; James Stelling; William G Kearns; James H Segars Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Alexa C O Medica; Brian W Whitcomb; Ksenya Shliakhsitsava; Andrew C Dietz; Kelsey Pinson; Christina Lam; Sally A D Romero; Patrick Sluss; Mary D Sammel; H Irene Su Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 5.958