Pascal Pigny1, Elisse Gorisse2, Amjad Ghulam3, Geoffroy Robin2, Sophie Catteau-Jonard2, Alain Duhamel4, Didier Dewailly2. 1. Laboratoire de Biochimie and Hormonologie, Centre de Biologie Pathologie, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, Lille, France. Electronic address: pascal.pigny@chru-lille.fr. 2. Service de Gynécologie Endocrinienne et Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, Lille, France. 3. Laboratoire de Biochimie and Hormonologie, Centre de Biologie Pathologie, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, Lille, France. 4. Unité de Biostatistiques, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Lille, Lille, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the different antimüllerian hormone (AMH) immunoassays on the market offer the same performance for the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). DESIGN: A total of 95 serum AMH samples were retrospectively evaluated for a period of 3 months in the same laboratory. SETTING: Academic center laboratory. PATIENT(S): Forty-eight control women with regular menses and no hyperandrogenism and 47 patients with classic PCOS (i.e., hyperandrogenism plus oligoanovulation) attending our department for infertility. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): AMH measurement using five commercial assays. Method comparison and evaluation of the diagnostic performance by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULT(S): Values obtained with Gen II and AL-105i ELISAs were similar to those provided by EAI AMH/MIS, whereas automatic assays generated lower values. A significant mean difference was observed between Access Dxi (1.35 ng/mL) or Cobas (1.73 ng/mL) and EIA AMH/MIS ELISA. By ROC analysis each assay displayed similar efficiency for PCOS diagnosis. Sensitivities varied from 49% to 74% when setting the specificity at 92%. Cluster analysis run in the control group identified a subgroup of asymptomatic women with polycystic ovary morphology (PCOM). After exclusion of PCOM, the 95th percentile of controls was 4.2 ng/mL (30 pmol/L) with the automatic assays and 5.6 ng/mL (40 pmol/L) with the manual assays. CONCLUSION(S): Performance of the different AMH assays for PCOS diagnosis is comparable, providing that different threshold values are used for manual and automatic assays. Measurement of serum AMH level appears as a robust tool for the definition of PCOM.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the different antimüllerian hormone (AMH) immunoassays on the market offer the same performance for the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). DESIGN: A total of 95 serum AMH samples were retrospectively evaluated for a period of 3 months in the same laboratory. SETTING: Academic center laboratory. PATIENT(S): Forty-eight control women with regular menses and no hyperandrogenism and 47 patients with classic PCOS (i.e., hyperandrogenism plus oligoanovulation) attending our department for infertility. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): AMH measurement using five commercial assays. Method comparison and evaluation of the diagnostic performance by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULT(S): Values obtained with Gen II and AL-105i ELISAs were similar to those provided by EAI AMH/MIS, whereas automatic assays generated lower values. A significant mean difference was observed between Access Dxi (1.35 ng/mL) or Cobas (1.73 ng/mL) and EIA AMH/MIS ELISA. By ROC analysis each assay displayed similar efficiency for PCOS diagnosis. Sensitivities varied from 49% to 74% when setting the specificity at 92%. Cluster analysis run in the control group identified a subgroup of asymptomatic women with polycystic ovary morphology (PCOM). After exclusion of PCOM, the 95th percentile of controls was 4.2 ng/mL (30 pmol/L) with the automatic assays and 5.6 ng/mL (40 pmol/L) with the manual assays. CONCLUSION(S): Performance of the different AMH assays for PCOS diagnosis is comparable, providing that different threshold values are used for manual and automatic assays. Measurement of serum AMH level appears as a robust tool for the definition of PCOM.
Authors: Anne Z Steiner; David Pritchard; Frank Z Stanczyk; James S Kesner; Juliana W Meadows; Amy H Herring; Donna D Baird Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Glenn E Palomaki; Bhanu Kalra; Tanya Kumar; Amita S Patel; Gopal Savjani; Laura C Torchen; Andrea Dunaif; Anthony Morrison; Geralyn M Lambert-Messerlian; Ajay Kumar Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Ali Abbara; Pei Chia Eng; Maria Phylactou; Sophie A Clarke; Tia Hunjan; Rachel Roberts; Sunitha Vimalesvaran; George Christopoulos; Rumana Islam; Kate Purugganan; Alexander N Comninos; Geoffrey H Trew; Rehan Salim; Artsiom Hramyka; Lisa Owens; Tom Kelsey; Waljit S Dhillo Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Stamatina Iliodromiti; Barbara Salje; Didier Dewailly; Craig Fairburn; Renato Fanchin; Richard Fleming; Hang Wun Raymond Li; Krzysztof Lukaszuk; Ernest Hung Yu Ng; Pascal Pigny; Teddy Tadros; Joseph van Helden; Ralf Weiskirchen; Scott M Nelson Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 6.918