Philippe Arvis1, Catherine Rongières2, Olivier Pirrello2, Philippe Lehert3,4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinique La Sagesse, Rennes, France. dr-arvis@wanadoo.fr. 2. Department de Medecine de La Reproduction, Centre Medico-Chirurgical Et Obstetrical (CMCO), 19 rue Louis Pasteur, 67300, Schiltigheim, France. 3. Faculty of Economics (P.L.), UCL Mons, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Faculty of Medicine (P.L.), The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) are correlated with the ovarian response, but their reliability and reproducibility are questionable. This large multicenter study describes their distribution, inter-cycle and inter-center variability, and their correlation. METHODS: A total of 25,854 IVF cycles among 15,219 patients were selected in 12 ART centers. Statistical distribution of AMH and AFC was studied by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro goodness of fit test. The reproducibility of AFC and AMH was measured using a mixed model regressing the logarithmic transformation of AFC with age. RESULTS: The distribution of AMH and AFC was characterized by a wide dispersion of values, twice more important for AFC, and a logarithmic distribution. The faster decline in AMH than in AFC with age suggests that their correlation changes with age. AMH and AFC showed a very low proportion of concordance in the range of expected poor responders according to Bologna cutoffs. The heterogeneity for AMH and AFC across centers was small, but much larger across patients within each center. Concerning the patients with several successive cycles, the reproducibility for AMH seemed much better than for AFC. Comparing respective performances of AMH and AFC for the prediction of ovarian response depended on the local conditions for measuring these indicators and on the reproducibility of results improved over time. CONCLUSION: Distribution of AMH and AFC was characterized by the wide dispersion of values, and a logarithmic distribution. Establishing cutoffs or a direct relationship AMH/AFC without considering age seems hazardous. Correlation between AMH and AFC was very poor in the range of poor responders.
PURPOSE: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) are correlated with the ovarian response, but their reliability and reproducibility are questionable. This large multicenter study describes their distribution, inter-cycle and inter-center variability, and their correlation. METHODS: A total of 25,854 IVF cycles among 15,219 patients were selected in 12 ART centers. Statistical distribution of AMH and AFC was studied by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro goodness of fit test. The reproducibility of AFC and AMH was measured using a mixed model regressing the logarithmic transformation of AFC with age. RESULTS: The distribution of AMH and AFC was characterized by a wide dispersion of values, twice more important for AFC, and a logarithmic distribution. The faster decline in AMH than in AFC with age suggests that their correlation changes with age. AMH and AFC showed a very low proportion of concordance in the range of expected poor responders according to Bologna cutoffs. The heterogeneity for AMH and AFC across centers was small, but much larger across patients within each center. Concerning the patients with several successive cycles, the reproducibility for AMH seemed much better than for AFC. Comparing respective performances of AMH and AFC for the prediction of ovarian response depended on the local conditions for measuring these indicators and on the reproducibility of results improved over time. CONCLUSION: Distribution of AMH and AFC was characterized by the wide dispersion of values, and a logarithmic distribution. Establishing cutoffs or a direct relationship AMH/AFC without considering age seems hazardous. Correlation between AMH and AFC was very poor in the range of poor responders.
Authors: Frank J M Broekmans; Dominique de Ziegler; Colin M Howles; Alain Gougeon; Geoffrey Trew; Francois Olivennes Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Nikolaos P Polyzos; Panagiotis Drakopoulos; Jose Parra; Antonio Pellicer; Samuel Santos-Ribeiro; Herman Tournaye; Ernesto Bosch; Juan Garcia-Velasco Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Z Heidar; M Bakhtiyari; M Mirzamoradi; S Zadehmodarres; F S Sarfjoo; M A Mansournia Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2015-05-17 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: J van Disseldorp; C B Lambalk; J Kwee; C W N Looman; M J C Eijkemans; B C Fauser; F J Broekmans Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2009-10-19 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: R K Dhillon; D J McLernon; P P Smith; S Fishel; K Dowell; J J Deeks; S Bhattacharya; A Coomarasamy Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2015-10-25 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Richard A Anderson; Ellen Anckaert; Ernesto Bosch; Didier Dewailly; Cheryl E Dunlop; Daniel Fehr; Luciano Nardo; Johan Smitz; Kelton Tremellen; Barbara Denk; Andrea Geistanger; Martin Hund Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 7.329