Valerie L Baker1, Clarisa Gracia2, Michael J Glassner3, Vicki L Schnell4, Kevin Doody5, Charles C Coddington6, Sanghyuk S Shin7, Lorna A Marshall8, Michael M Alper9, Arlene J Morales10, Mary Ellen Pavone11, Millie A Behera12, Edward A Zbella13, Bruce S Shapiro14, Joely A Straseski15, Dennis L Broyles7. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. Electronic address: vlbaker@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Main Line Fertility, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. 4. CORM, Webster, Texas. 5. CARE, Dallas, Texas. 6. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. Beckman Coulter, Carlsbad, California. 8. Pacific NW Fertility, Seattle, Washington. 9. Boston IVF, Waltham, Massachusetts. 10. Fertility Specialists Medical Group, San Diego, California. 11. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 12. Bloom Reproductive Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 13. Women's Medical Research Group, Clearwater, Florida. 14. Fertility Center of Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada. 15. Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new fully automated antimüllerian hormone (AMH) assay for prediction of poor ovarian response (POR) to ovarian stimulation defined as four or fewer oocytes retrieved. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirteen private and academic fertility centers in the United States. PATIENTS(S): A total of 178 women undergoing their first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle eligible for the study were consented and enrolled, with data available from 160 women for prediction of POR and 164 women for AMH correlation with antral follicle count (AFC). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cutoff point for AMH that predicts POR. Correlation of AMH with AFC, and cutoff point for AMH that correlates with antral follicle count >15. RESULT(S): The mean AMH among the poor responders was 0.74 ng/mL, compared with 3.20 ng/mL for normal to high responders. The AMH cutoff at 90% specificity for predicting POR with the use of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.93 ng/mL, with an associated sensitivity of 74.1%. For prediction of POR, ROC analysis showed that AMH (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.929) was significantly better than FSH (AUC = 0.615; P<.0001). AMH was positively correlated with AFC (Spearman rho = 0.756). The AMH at 90% sensitivity for AFC >15 was 1.75, with specificity of 59.1%. CONCLUSION(S): A fully automated AMH assay can be a useful biomarker for predicting POR in IVF cycles. Because AMH cutoff points vary depending on the assay used, future studies should continue to calibrate test results to clinically important outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new fully automated antimüllerian hormone (AMH) assay for prediction of poor ovarian response (POR) to ovarian stimulation defined as four or fewer oocytes retrieved. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirteen private and academic fertility centers in the United States. PATIENTS(S): A total of 178 women undergoing their first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle eligible for the study were consented and enrolled, with data available from 160 women for prediction of POR and 164 women for AMH correlation with antral follicle count (AFC). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cutoff point for AMH that predicts POR. Correlation of AMH with AFC, and cutoff point for AMH that correlates with antral follicle count >15. RESULT(S): The mean AMH among the poor responders was 0.74 ng/mL, compared with 3.20 ng/mL for normal to high responders. The AMH cutoff at 90% specificity for predicting POR with the use of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.93 ng/mL, with an associated sensitivity of 74.1%. For prediction of POR, ROC analysis showed that AMH (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.929) was significantly better than FSH (AUC = 0.615; P<.0001). AMH was positively correlated with AFC (Spearman rho = 0.756). The AMH at 90% sensitivity for AFC >15 was 1.75, with specificity of 59.1%. CONCLUSION(S): A fully automated AMH assay can be a useful biomarker for predicting POR in IVF cycles. Because AMH cutoff points vary depending on the assay used, future studies should continue to calibrate test results to clinically important outcomes.
Authors: Lydia H Pecker; Sarah Hussain; Jaanvi Mahesh; Ravi Varadhan; Mindy S Christianson; Sophie Lanzkron Journal: Blood Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: B S Eisele; G C Villalba Silva; C Bessow; R Donato; V K Genro; J S Cunha-Filho Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: Sandro C Esteves; Alessandro Conforti; Sesh K Sunkara; Luigi Carbone; Silvia Picarelli; Alberto Vaiarelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Fulvio Zullo; Claus Yding Andersen; Raoul Orvieto; Peter Humaidan; Carlo Alviggi Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Ashley M Eskew; Bronwyn S Bedrick; Jorge E Chavarro; Joan K Riley; Emily S Jungheim Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 5.211