Teddy Tadros1, Bruno Tarasconi2, Jean Nassar1, Jean-Luc Benhaim3, Joëlle Taieb4, Renato Fanchin5. 1. Center of Reproductive Medicine, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France; University of Paris-Ouest, Suresnes, France. 2. Center of Reproductive Medicine, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France; University of Paris-Ouest, Suresnes, France; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nìvel Superior (CAPES) Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasilia, Brazil. 3. Laboratoire d'Analyses Médicales Benhaim, Clamart, France. 4. Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP - HP), Department of Biochemistry, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, Clamart, France. 5. Center of Reproductive Medicine, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France; University of Paris-Ouest, Suresnes, France. Electronic address: r.fanchin@hopital-foch.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the strength of the relationship between antral follicle count (AFC) and serum antimüllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations obtained with two automated and one manual AMH assays in three different AFC populations. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University-affiliated IVF-ET center. PATIENT(S): Frozen-thawed serum samples of 211 assisted conception candidates, aged 24-43 years. INTERVENTION(S): Serum AMH was measured using one manual (AMH Gen II) and two fully automated (Access AMH and Elecsys AMH) assays. Antral follicle count was performed under strictly standardized conditions and sorted into three groups according to tercile values: low AFC (3-12 follicles; n = 73), intermediate AFC (13-20 follicles; n = 65), and high AFC (21-84 follicles; n = 73). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Strength of correlation between AMH levels and AFC. RESULT(S): Overall, AMH levels were lower with Access AMH (-16%) and Elecsys AMH (-20%) than with AMH Gen II. Remarkably, the strength of correlations between AFC and circulating AMH levels was the same with the three assays (r = 0.83). Yet in the low AFC group, serum AMH levels obtained by Access AMH and Elecsys AMH showed a stronger correlation with AFC (r = 0.63 and r = 0.65, respectively) than the AMH Gen II (r = 0.52), a phenomenon that was not observed in the remaining AFC groups. CONCLUSION(S): As compared with conventional AMH Gen II assay results, [1] serum AMH concentrations were -16% and -20% lower with Access AMH and Elecsys AMH, respectively; and [2] automated assays were more strongly correlated to AFC in the subset of patients with reduced follicle count.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the strength of the relationship between antral follicle count (AFC) and serum antimüllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations obtained with two automated and one manual AMH assays in three different AFC populations. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University-affiliated IVF-ET center. PATIENT(S): Frozen-thawed serum samples of 211 assisted conception candidates, aged 24-43 years. INTERVENTION(S): Serum AMH was measured using one manual (AMH Gen II) and two fully automated (Access AMH and Elecsys AMH) assays. Antral follicle count was performed under strictly standardized conditions and sorted into three groups according to tercile values: low AFC (3-12 follicles; n = 73), intermediate AFC (13-20 follicles; n = 65), and high AFC (21-84 follicles; n = 73). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Strength of correlation between AMH levels and AFC. RESULT(S): Overall, AMH levels were lower with Access AMH (-16%) and Elecsys AMH (-20%) than with AMH Gen II. Remarkably, the strength of correlations between AFC and circulating AMH levels was the same with the three assays (r = 0.83). Yet in the low AFC group, serum AMH levels obtained by Access AMH and Elecsys AMH showed a stronger correlation with AFC (r = 0.63 and r = 0.65, respectively) than the AMH Gen II (r = 0.52), a phenomenon that was not observed in the remaining AFC groups. CONCLUSION(S): As compared with conventional AMH Gen II assay results, [1] serum AMH concentrations were -16% and -20% lower with Access AMH and Elecsys AMH, respectively; and [2] automated assays were more strongly correlated to AFC in the subset of patients with reduced follicle count.
Authors: Panagiotis Drakopoulos; Arne van de Vijver; Jose Parra; Ellen Anckaert; Johan Schiettecatte; Christophe Blockeel; Martin Hund; Wilma D J Verhagen-Kamerbeek; Ying He; Herman Tournaye; Nikolaos P Polyzos Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Laura Melado; Raquel Vitorino; Carol Coughlan; Leyla Depret Bixio; Ana Arnanz; Ibrahim Elkhatib; Neelke De Munck; Human M Fatemi; Barbara Lawrenz Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-10-21 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