|
Middle East Fertility Society Journal
Middle East Fertility Society
ISSN: 1110-5690
Vol. 12, Num. 1, 2007, pp. 13-26
|
Middle East Fertility Society Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007, pp. 13-26
DEBATE
Assessment of ovarian reserve prior to IVF
Code Number: mf07003
Comment by: Hossam I Abdalla, FRCOG
London, U.K.
Director of Lister Fertility Clinic The Lister Hospital Chelsea Bridge Road
London SW1W 8RH UK
In the female fetus
oocyte numbers peak by 16 weeks of gestation, reaching up to 7 million. They
decrease progressively and at the time of birth a female will have about 2
million eggs. As she approaches menarche the woman will have about 500,000.
This primordial follicular disappearance continues throughout reproductive life
and accelerates approximately 10 years prior to the menopause, by which time
the number of eggs have fallen to a few hundred. If a woman ovulates one egg
per month she will release 12 eggs per annum. Throughout her reproductive
career (approximately 40 years, from the age of 10 to the age of 50) she will
produce 480 eggs - yet nature has given her 480,000 eggs to work with.
At all stages of the
menstrual cycle there are a number of small antral follicles present. This
number changes with age, being at its highest in younger women. As the level of
FSH rises at the beginning of the menstrual cycle more follicles are recruited
and some are then selected for further development. One follicle, however, will
be at the right condition for development and this “chosen” follicle will
continue to develop till mid cycle when it ovulates. The quality of the
released oocyte is related to both the age of the woman and the number of
primordial follicles available in the ovary. Statistically speaking it is more
likely for an egg to be of better quality if it is randomly “chosen”, for example,
out of 100 competing primordial follicles than if it was randomly “chosen” out
10 competing primordial follicles.
Follicle
stimulating hormone (FSH) is crucial for follicular development as it is the
hormone that controls the process of recruitment, selection and finally the
full development of the maturing follicle. The number of primordial follicles
available in the ovary influences the level of FSH. As the follicles are
recruited, however, they secrete both estrogen and inhibin, which in turn keeps
the level of FSH low. As women age, the number of recruited follicles decrease.
Consequently the suppression of the FSH level decreases and, as a result, the
level of FSH increases with age in an attempt to continue to recruit the
ever-decreasing number of eggs within the ovary. The level of FSH provides a
biological marker for ovarian reserve. The higher the level, the less the
ovarian reserve. Consequently fewer primordial follicles will be recruited and
the situation takes place as described above, with the “chosen” follicle sought
from only a few competing ones.
Oocyte quality is
established early during fetal life. The first produced oocytes (less
susceptible to non-disjunction) ovulate first and ‘poorer’ oocytes ovulate
later. There is also evidence to suggest that there is age dependent damage in
oocytes due to gradual increase in intracellular oxidative stress that also
leads to increased frequency of non-disjunction. It is well documented that
there is an age related reduction in fecundity due to reduction in pregnancy
rate and rise in miscarriage rate. This is associated with an age related
increase in aneuploidy due to non-disjunction. Age therefore results in
reduction of both quality and quantity of oocytes.
As discussed, the number
of eggs available in the ovary is certainly reduced and the level of FSH is
elevated as women age. The question here is: ‘If a woman at the age of 30
years, for example, has a level of FSH raised above a certain limit; do these
eggs behave like those of a woman aged 40years?’ And: ‘what is the relevance
of high FSH in the context of assisted conception? Should these women have
treatment with their own eggs or should they all have oocyte donation?’
Elevated levels of FSH
are associated with reduction in pregnancy and live birth rate (LBR). It has
been shown that this is primarily due to reduction in oocyte quantity rather
than oocyte quality (Abdalla & Thum 2004). Women who are regularly cycling
and who have evidence of ovulation despite reduced ovarian reserve should be
offered ovulation induction for the purpose of IVF. These women, however, need
to know that their chances of having a successful outcome are significantly
reduced, compared to women of similar age with normal FSH. This reduction is
because they will produce fewer eggs and not because the eggs are older. We
should not expect a large number of follicles to develop and to be prepared to
go ahead with egg collection with a lower number of follicles.
It is well
established that the number of embryos available to choose from or to transfer
is perhaps the second most important factor after age. The more eggs we
collect, the more embryos available to make a selection of the best embryos to
put back. As a result, the live birth rate significantly improves. Women with
elevated FSH are associated with increased cancellation rates, as higher
amounts of drugs are given to effect ovarian response and fewer eggs are
collected. Whatever eggs are collected, they have the same fertilization rate -
but there will be fewer embryos to choose from. Consequently the pregnancy rate
will be lower, the higher the level of FSH - with fewer embryos to transfer.
The level of FSH, however, does not affect the miscarriage rate. Once these
women became pregnant they have the same chance of achieving a live birth as
those with normal FSH. All this confirms our view that the reduction in
outcome in these patients is secondary to a quantitative reduction in the eggs
rather than a qualitative one. The incidence of aneuploidy is the same -
regardless of the level of FSH. Aneuploidy rate, however, is significantly
higher in older women with normal FSH compared to younger women with elevated
FSH. (Personal experience).
Why do we assess ovarian reserve?
There are many tests to
assess ovarian reserve: the most common and the cheapest is the measurement of
day 3 FSH as well as the level of estradiol. Clinicians may also use the
measurement of Inhibin B or Antimullerian Hormone (AMH). The latter might be
more sensitive. Dynamic tests have been devised including clomiphene challenge
test and GnRH-a stimulation test (GAST). The purpose of all these tests is to
assess the potential responsiveness of the ovary to stimulating agents.
The assessment of
ovarian reserve can be beneficial to patients undergoing assisted conception
treatment. As suggested above it helps in determining the dose of the
medication to induce multiple follicular development. Patients with reduced
reserve will require higher doses of medication and those with sensitive ovaries require a more measured approach. Most clinics, however, use a basal day 3 FSH level or
other ovarian reserve tests as a screening tool to assess the chance of
individual patients achieving a pregnancy or a live birth with IVF treatment.
It has been suggested that the reason some clinics refuse to treat patients
with elevated basal FSH is to maintain the clinic’s overall success rate or to
improve their position on the league tables (Sharif and Afnan, 2003).
Elevated day 3 FSH
levels in a previous cycle is associated with a reduction in the overall live
birth rate if compared to women with normal basal FSH levels. (Abdalla &
Thum 2004). Nevertheless, the live birth rate was considered reasonable,
especially in cycling women under the age of 38 with FSH between 10 – 20 IU/L
where the chance of a live birth is at least 20%. This is comparable to the
national average LBR in the UK (HFEA Patient Guide 2001) in patients who are
not considered by most assessments to be average! In fact 2 patients with FSH
> 20 IU/l achieved a live birth: one in her first cycle; and the other in
her second cycle, giving a cumulative LBR of 19.2%. Indeed patients of all
groups of elevated levels of FSH (> 10 IU/L) where the age < 38, the LBR
was in excess of 20% per single cycle with a cumulative LBR after 3 cycles of
49.3%. These results are, for a significant number of women, a far better
choice than the alternatives of oocyte donation and adoption.
It is true that if the
woman has reduced ovarian reserve she may respond very poorly necessitating in
some cases canceling the cycle. We do however believe that the best arbiter is
to give those patients ovulation induction agents and gage their response
rather than condemning them for either repeated futile testing or denying them
treatment altogether on the mere potential of their response.
The practice of canceling
treatment for poor responders should be questioned. A study completed by
Ranieri et al 1998; showed that 27% of the patients had their treatment cycles
cancelled as they were considered poor responders (< 5 follicles of 15 mm
and E < 200 pmol/l). Was it right to cancel these treatment cycles and
advise the patients of other modalities of treatment? Analysis of similar data
in our program in patients of similar mean age and similar criteria who were
not cancelled showed a live birth rate of 23% which was significantly lower
than those with who had 5 or more follicles who yielded a live birth rate of
32%. Nevertheless a live birth rate of 20% is a better outcome than canceling
the cycle. The problem here is not that they produce fewer live births, but
whether such a lower live birth rate is acceptable to these patients.
Clinicians should advise patients with reduced ovarian reserve to expect a
lower pregnancy rate, due to the lower number of eggs she will produce, as
compared to their counterpart of similar age who may produce a larger number of
eggs. Clinicians and patients alike should also accept that patients with high
FSH levels will have a poorer ovarian response and be prepared to go ahead and
have egg collection when small numbers of follicles have developed.
In summary,
cycling women with high basal day 3 FSH will have a lower chance of achieving a
live birth, but there is still a reasonable chance of success even with FSH
levels up to 20 IU/L. High levels of FSH reflects reduction in number but not
quality of oocytes, while age results in reduction of both oocyte quality and
number. In the current system, many of the women with elevated FSH are lead to
believe that they are unsuitable for IVF treatment and would have no chance of
a successful outcome. These women are forced to consider other treatment
options to provide them with a chance of motherhood, although not with their
own genetic child. A chance, although a reduced one, of achieving a pregnancy
with their own genetic child is a precious and important opportunity for them
to consider. For some woman, a lower chance is better than no chance at all -
and to deny them this choice is a tragedy. Every woman in this position should
have the right to choose. The level of basal FSH should not be used as a
screening tool to select patients for treatment; instead it should be used as
additional information to counsel patients appropriately regarding the
realistic chance of conception as well as aiding the clinician in determining
the appropriate dose of gonadotropins.
It is our belief that it
is incumbent on the clinician to be candid with their patients and carry out
their wishes, and not allow their vanity (the clinic’s success rate) to stand
in the way of the wishes of the patients.
REFERENCE
-
Abdalla
H. Thum MY. An elevated basal FSH reflects a quantitative rather than
qualitative decline of the ovarian reserve. [Clinical Trial. Journal Article]
Hum Reprod 2004; 19(4):893-8
-
Ranieri
DM, Quinn F, Makhlouf A et al. Simultaneous evaluation of basal follicle
stimulating hormone and 17-ß estradiol response to gonadotropin-releasing
hormone analogue stimulation: an improved predictor of ovarian reserve.
Fertil Steril 1998;70:227-33.
-
Sharif1
K and Afnan M. The IVF league tables: time for a reality check Hum Reprod 2003;
18 ( 3): 483-485
Comment by: Aboubakr M. Elnashar, M.D. Benha,
Egypt.
Prof. of obstetrics and gynecology, Benha university hospital,
E-mail: elnashar53@hotmail.com
Ovarian reserve is a
term used to describe the functional potential of the ovary and is currently
defined as the number and quality of the follicles left in the ovary at any
given time. Various methods are currently used in the assessment of ovarian
reserve in order to predict the outcome in assisted reproduction. There is
currently no clinically useful predictive test sufficiently accurate and
distinct to assess ovarian reserve accurately. Female age alone is a rough
parameter for assessing ovarian reserve. The
basal follicle stimulating hormone level is not adequately sensitive to predict
poor outcome and the same is true for other basal parameters, including basal
estradiol, the follicle stimulating hormone/luteinizing hormone ratio, and
inhibin-B levels.
Most IVF units use basal
FSH levels as an indicator of ovarian responsiveness, even though the evidence
to support its efficacy as a routine test is weak. There is some evidence to
support the predictive value of FSH in a population of women at high risk
(women >40 years of age, women with poor response to ovarian stimulation and
women who have failed to conceive in previous cycles) in terms of the
likelihood of achieving pregnancy through assisted reproduction. In contrast,
the role of day 3 FSH in the evaluation of young healthy women is extremely
limited (1). Basal FSH is simple to perform but does not diagnose poor ovarian
reserve until high thresholds are used. As a test, it does not predict
pregnancy and should not be used to exclude people from assisted reproduction
technology (ART), especially regularly cycling young women.
A fall in day 3
inhibin-B levels may predict poor ovarian reserve before the expected rise in
day 3 FSH. However, other studies do not support its use as a predictive marker
in IVF (2). Inhibin-B levels are influenced by the amount of fat in an
individual, suggesting that the follicles of obese women do not produce as much
inhibin-B as those of lean women.
Anti-Müllerian
hormone (AMH) has been suggested as a predictor of ovarian response. AMH is the
only marker of ovarian reserve that can be tested in follicular as well as
luteal phase, although the threshold levels in both phases need to be
standardized (3). AMH levels have been found to be two to three times higher in
PCOS women, making it difficult to find a threshold value for poor ovarian
reserve without a significant overlap with normal values. Although it is the
most sensitive and specific indicator of ovarian response (thresholds 25 pg/l),
compared with other available tests, it does not predict pregnancy. AMH may be
a better marker of ovarian responsiveness than inhibin B, as it may reflect the
size of the larger resting pool of pre-FSH-dependent follicles. AMH appears to
have less inter-cycle variability than other markers of ovarian reserve.
A systematic review has
demonstrated the superiority of antral follicle count (AFC) over basal FSH in
the prediction of poor ovarian response (4). Although AFC is the single best
available predictor of response to ovarian stimulation with exogenous
gonadotrophins, the precise definition of what constitutes an antral follicle
is variable, with cited diameters ranging between 2–10 and 2–5 mm. Moreover,
different thresholds for defining low AFC are used in different studies.
Inter-cycle variability appears to be more significant in young women and in
women with high AFC. Hence, a low AFC in young, infertile but ovulatory women
should be interpreted cautiously, as this may not indicate poor ovarian
reserve. The performance of AFC for predicting failure to achieve pregnancy is
poor. This is because while AFC determines the number of oocytes, a clinically
relevant outcome (pregnancy or live birth) depends on oocyte quality as well as
quantity. A correlation was found between ovarian volume and reproductive
success in ART cycles; however, the likelihood ratio of a positive test with
regard to pregnancy was 1.0–1.4, suggesting that its value is limited (5).
Moreover, there is a wide range in the definition of normal ovarian volume in
the reproductive age group.
All the dynamic tests
are more expensive, invasive and associated with the side effects of
administered stimulation regimens. Recent meta-analysis has shown that the
clomiphene citrate challenge test (CCCT) is no better than basal FSH in
predicting a clinical pregnancy (6). Gonadotropin agonist stimulation test
(GAST) did not perform better (4). In addition, its predictive ability towards
ongoing pregnancy is poor. It is clear that none of the above tests fulfill the
criteria for a good screening test as opportunistic screening or to develop a
mass screening program.
Combinations of various
markers (AFC, AMH and inhibin- B) have been tried, and a joint scoring system
has been developed which predicts a poor response to gonadotrophin stimulation
at best with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity and a positive likelihood
ratio of 4.36%. However, they have not been tested for prediction of pregnancy
(7). From these data it seems that compared to other ORTs, multifactor models
do not create a definite improvement in predictive capacity. All the ovarian
reserve tests (ORTs) described so far test oocyte quantity. None of the
available tests or combination of tests, of ovarian reserve has been shown to predict
pregnancy or live birth with sufficient accuracy. Therefore, the clinical
utility of each test in isolation would be insufficient for them to be
recommended in routine IVF practice. However, measurements may be useful in
patients with a high pre-test probability of poor response and/or cycle
cancellation due to reduced ovarian reserve. Whether this information should be used to discourage women from entering IVF treatment is debatable, because
ovarian reserve testing is better at predicting a reduced response to
stimulation than the possibility of pregnancy. This information can be used as
a basis for discussion of the likelihood of a poor response to stimulation and
possible reduced chance of success with IVF. As long as patients are aware that
their chances of success are reduced, it seems reasonable to offer them the
chance of pregnancy. Ovarian reserve testing in these women may help with
treatment decisions and counseling about prognosis but should not be used to
stop access to treatment.
A systematic
review by Broekmans et al. (8) concluded that the role of routine ORT is
limited. The value of ORT prior to IVF for individual couples strongly depends
on the prevalence of IVF failure as well as on the valuation of the false
positive (incorrect withholding IVF) or false negative (incorrect performing
IVF) outcomes. Variations in the pregnancy rate of the IVF program have an
important effect on the value of the ORTs. If the pregnancy rate increases from
20 to 50%, the test accuracy of ORT has to improve very strongly. It should be
noted that the use of pregnancy as outcome parameter for the assessment of
ovarian reserve status may be insufficient if only one exposure cycle is taken
into account. As such, the possibility of misjudgment on the basis of currently
known ORTs is hard to rule out. This implies that the use of the test as a
method to deny treatment to assumed ovarian aged women should be declined and,
as a consequence the test should not be applied on a regular basis and should
only be used for counseling or screening purposes. Treatment of all couples
without testing was found to generate less distress than testing for ovarian
reserve. Based on the decision analysis, where current test accuracy and
preference inventory among patients and physicians were used, testing for
ovarian reserve seems not useful for current IVF programs.
In the assisted
conception population, the first cycle of IVF still remains the most informative test in terms of how a woman will respond to ovarian stimulation. Recent work has
shown that only the combination of an abnormal ORT and a poor ovarian response
in the first cycle (the expected poor response case) indicates very low
prospects in subsequent cycles (9). As poor ovarian response will provide some information on ovarian reserve status, especially if the stimulation is maximal, entering the
first cycle of IVF without any prior testing seems to be the preferable
strategy. Once a poor response is obtained, the question arises whether this
finding is based on depleted ovaries or other causes, like underdosing for
instance, based on the presence of certain FSH receptor polymorphisms. A repeat
cycle with adequate, maximal stimulation or a post hoc-performed ORT [basal FSH
or AFC] may correctly classify the poor responder patient as having an aged
ovary (4) and may correctly suggest that they refrain from further treatment
(9). In conclusion: use of any ORT for outcome prediction cannot be supported
and entering the first cycle of IVF without any prior testing seems to be the
preferable strategy. Regularly cycling women should not be excluded from IVF on
the basis of abnormal results following ORTs.
REFERENCES
-
Wolff
EF, Taylor HS. Value of the day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone measurement.
Fertil Steril 2004;81:1486-8.
-
Creus
M, Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Vidal E, Carmona F, Casamitjana R, Vanrell JA ,
Balasch J. Day 3 serum inhibin B and FSH and age as predictors of assisted
reproduction treatment outcome. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2341-6.
-
Fanchin
R, Schonauer LM, Righini C, Guibourdenche J, Frydman R and Taieb J. Serum
anti-Mullerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status
than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. Hum Reprod 2003;18:323–7.
-
Hendriks
DJ, Mol BW, Bancsi LF, te Velde ER and Broekmans FJ. Antral follicle count
in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro
fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating
hormone level. Fertil Steril 2005;83,291–301.
-
Lass
A, Skull J, McVeigh E, Margara R and Winston RM. Measurement of ovarian volume
by transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal
gonadotrophin for in-vitro fertilization can predict poor response. Hum Reprod
1997;12,294–7.
-
Jain
T, Soules MR and Collins JA. Comparison of basal follicle-stimulating hormone
versus the clomiphene citrate challenge test for ovarian reserve screening.
Fertil Steril 2004;82,180–5.
-
Muttukrishna
S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM and Serhal P. Antral follicle
count, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response
in assisted reproductive technology. BJOG 2005;112,1384–90.
-
Broekmans
FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests
predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685-718..
-
Klinkert
ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW and te Velde ER. A poor response in the first
in vitro fertilization cycle is not necessarily related to a poor prognosis
in
subsequent cycles. Fertil Steril 2004;81,1247–53.
Comment by: Raja Al-Karaki,M.D. Amman,
Jordan
Assisted Reproduction Technology Unit, Al-Amal Maternity Hospital,
Amman, Jordan
Ovarian
reserve is one of the prognostic factors that determine IVF outcome. It is
defined by the number of follicles and the quality of oocytes in the ovary and
describes its functional potential. Ovarian reserve screening in IVF identifies
women with poor ovarian response to stimulation and diminished chance of
achieving pregnancy. Currently, one of the issues being debated revolves around
which tests should be used for its assessment and how much is their
significance. In most ART programs, several parameters known as ovarian reserve
markers have been tested to estimate the functional state of the ovary. These
include hormonal markers and ultrasonographic parameters.
Hormonal markers
Much of the ovarian
reserve literatures focus on basal FSH levels (measured on day 3 of menstrual
cycle) as an indicator of ovarian responsiveness to stimulation. Basal FSH
elevation can predict fewer recruitable eggs, cycle cancellation and poor
pregnancy potential. Although the usefulness of FSH as a routine test in
ovarian reserve estimation in IVF programs has been questioned, there is some
evidence to support its predictive value in women with poor chance of achieving
pregnancy (women over 40 years of age, women with poor response to ovarian
stimulation and women who failed to conceive in previous cycles) (1). The
clinical value of measuring FSH depends on the choice of the cutoff level. The
mostly used FSH assays suggest that modest FSH elevations are in the range of
10-20 IU/L while marked elevations are above 20 IU/L. In reality, there is no
level that can absolutely predict a failed outcome after treatment. In case of
elevated FSH > 15 IU/L, patients should be told that although the prospects
of conceiving is low, first trial treatment is justified. Patients with mildly
elevated levels (10-15IU/L) seem to have a good probability of getting pregnant.
Furthermore FSH level should be regarded in view of other variables including
age and cycle regularity. Some studies reported that a moderately elevated FSH
level in IVF population has a limited predictive value in young women and age
seemed to be a more important predictive factor for the occurrence of pregnancy
than FSH (2). In contrast, it has recently been shown that younger patients with elevated FSH above 10 IU/L
performed as poorly as the older patients after IVF (3).
To use day 3 FSH in a
better way, the inclusion of cycle regularity as an additional measure of
ovarian reserve was investigated. Some groups concluded that it is not
justified to exclude patients with regular cycles from treatment on the basis
of FSH value alone (4). For patients with FSH levels above 15 IU/L and cycling
regularly, ongoing pregnancy rate is quite acceptable. On the other hand, low
results were reported in another study which included patients with irregular
cycles in addition to elevated FSH (5). Cycle irregularity reflects more
advanced stage of reproductive ageing leading to much less favorable outcome.
Concerning further
tests, it is still debatable whether inhibin B and estradiol levels are useful
predictors for ovarian reserve. Some reported that women with low inhibin B
levels (< 45 pg/ml) demonstrated a poorer ovarian response than women with
higher levels (6), while others did not support its use as a predictive marker
in IVF (7). Regarding day 3 estradiol, no correlation has been detected between
elevated levels ≥ 50 pg/ml and IVF
outcome (8). In contrast, this level was associated with higher cancellation
and lower pregnancy rates independent of FSH levels (9). Moreover, elevated day
3 estradiol may predict poor ovarian response even when basal FSH is normal (10)
which reflects that estradiol level on day 3 could be of added value for
counseling patients with normal FSH concerning their reproductive potential.
Anti-Mullerian hormone
(AMH) has been suggested as an indicator of ovarian response (threshold = 25 pg/L)
and been found to decline with advanced female age (11). However some of data
showed that AMH can not predict pregnancy (12).
Other markers of ovarian
reserve are dynamic tests which involves The clomiphene citrate challenge test
(CCCT), exogenous FSH ovarian reserve test (EFORT) and GnRH agonist stimulation
test (GAST).
An abnormal CCCT is
defined by an elevated FSH on day 10 after administration of 100 mg clomiphene
citrate on days 5-9. It has a high predictive value for cycle cancellation due
to poor ovarian response and failure to conceive (13). The test may be superior
to basal FSH screening because it appears to be more sensitive and unmasks
patients who might not be detected by basal FSH screening alone. However, it
is recommend to screen patients with both day 3 and day 10 FSH levels.
EFORT
measures basal FSH, estradiol and estradiol response one day after 300 IU FSH
administration on day 3. It has been studied for detecting poor responders (14)
while it was not tested for prediction of pregnancy in IVF population.
GAST evaluates the
change in estradiol level from cycle day 2 to 3 after administration of 1 mg of
leuprolide acetate. While elevation of estradiol may be associated with good
ovarian response, this test did not show better clinical value of ovarian
reserve when compared with basal day 3 FSH, antral follicle count and inhibin B
(15).
Ultrasonographic markers
Imaging techniques may
further help in predicting poor ovarian response in patients undergoing IVF
with normal ovarian functional tests. The measurements of ovarian volume,
antral follicle count (AFC) and ovarian stromal blood flow with color Doppler
seem to be helpful markers. It was demonstrated that in women with low ovarian
volume (< 3 cm3), poor response to stimulation is evident with lower
pregnancy rate (16). Recently, antral follicle count has been evaluated
extensively as a test of ovarian reserve in patients with limited ovarian
response. The superiority of AFC over basal FSH in the prediction of poor
ovarian response was illustrated while its significance for predicting failure
to achieve pregnancy is poor (17). Issues to be addressed are the possible
inter-cyclic variability and the lack of consensus regarding the definition of
low AFC which necessitate careful interpretation. Ovarian stromal blood flow is
another parameter measured to assess ovarian reserve. It has been reported that
ovarian response during IVF is significantly correlated with mean peak systolic
velocity (PSV) which is higher in normal responders than in poor responders
(18).
CONCLUSION
We would like to
recommend that the ovarian reserve should be assessed in all IVF patients prior
to stimulation to predict those who will respond poorly.
The real clinical value
of measuring ovarian reserve markers prior to IVF is debatable, therefore
careful interpretation of the results are needed because this will influence
the decisions in patients' management.
The benefit of the
available tests of ovarian reserve is counseling women regarding poor prognosis
but none of these tests have been shown to predict ongoing pregnancy or live
birth with sufficient accuracy. Abnormal test values can predict those who will
respond poorly and reflects low chances for conception. However, these tests
should not be used to exclude patients from treatment especially regularly
cycling young women.
REFERENCES
-
Barnhart K, Osheroff J. We are overinterpreting the predictive
value of serum follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril
1999; 72: 8-9.
-
Esposito MA, Contifaris C, Barnhart KT. A
moderately elevated day 3 FSH concentration has limited predictive value,
especially in younger women. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:118-23.
-
El Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Hart R, Taylor A. Braude P. Young
age does not protect against the adverse effects of reduced ovarian reserve
– an eight year study. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:1519-24.
-
Van Rooij IAJ, de Jong E, Broekmans FJM, Laoman C,
Habbema JDF, te Velde E. High follicle – stimulating hormone levels should
not necessarily lead to the exclusion of subfertile patients from treatment.
Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1478-1485.
-
Levi AJ, Raynault MF, Bergh PA, Drews MR, Miller BT,
Scott RT. Reproducitve outcome in patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:666-9.
-
Dzik A, Lambert B, Mescerlian G, Izzo VM, Soares JB,
Pinotti JA, Seifer D. Inhibin B response to EFORT is associated with the
outcome of oocyte retrieval in the subsequent in vitro fertilization cycle. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 1114-1117.
-
Creus M, Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Vidal E, Carmona F,
Casamitjana R, Vanrell JA, Balasch J. Day 3 serum inhibin B and FSH and
age as predictors of assisted reproduction treatment outcome. Hum Reprod
2000; 15:
2341-2346.
-
Scott RT, Tone JP, Muasher SJ, Oehninger S, Robinson S,
Rosewaks Z. Follicle-stimulating hormone levels on cycle day 3 are predictive
of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 651-654.
-
Licciardi FL,
Liu HC, Rosen waks 2. Day 3 estradiol serum concentrations as prognosticators
of ovarian stimulation response and pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing in
vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 991-994.
-
Evers
JL, Slaats P, Land JA, Dumoulin JG, Dunselman GA. Elevated levels of basal
estradiol – 17 beta predict poor response in patients with normal basal levels
of follicle – stimulating hormone undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 1010-1014.
-
Van Rooiji IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser
BC, Bancsi LF, de Jang FH, Themmen AP. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels:
a novel measure of ovarian
reserve. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:3065-3071.
-
Ficicioglu
C, Kutlu T, Baglam E, BaKacak Z. Early follicular antimullerian hormone as an
indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 592-596.
-
Tanbo
T, Dale PO, Ludne O, Norman N, Abyholm T, Prediction of response to controlled
ovarian hyperstimulation: a comparison of basal and clomiphene
citrate-stimulated follicle stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril 1990;
53: 295-301.
-
Fanchin R, de Ziegler D, Olivernness F, Taieb J, Dzika A, Frydman R,
Exogenous Follicle stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT): a
simple and reliable screening test for detecting poor responders in in-vitro
fertilization. Hum Reprod 1994; 9:1607-1611.
-
Hendricks
DJ, Broakmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Looman CW, de Jong FH, te Velde ER. Single and
repeated GnRH agonist stimulation tests compared with basal markers of ovarian
reserve in the prediction of outcome in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005b;
22:65-73.
-
Lass
A, Skull J, McVeigh E. Measurement of ovarian volume by transvaginal sonography
before human menopausal gonadotrophin superovulation for in vitro fertilization
can predict poor response. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 294-297.
-
Hendricks
DJ, MoL BW, Bancsi LF, te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Antral follicle count in
prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization:
a meta – analysis and comparison with basal follicle – stimulating hormone
level. Fertil Steril 2005a; 83: 291-301.
-
Engmann
L, Sladkevicius P, Agrawal R, Bekin JS, Campbell S, Tan SL. Value of ovarian
stromal blood flow velocity measurement after pituitary suppression in the
prediction
of ovarian responsiveness and outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment.
Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 22-29.
Comment by: Samir M. Al-Halawat, FRCOG,
Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia Hesham Al-Inany, M.D, PhD
Cairo, Egypt
Women’s Specialized Hospital, King Fahad Medical City,
P.O. Box 49065 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 11525
The ovarian reserve,
constituted by the size of the ovarian follicle pool and the quality of the
oocyte therein, decline with increasing age, resulting in the decrease of a
woman’s reproductive function (1). At birth, about one million oocytes are
present. This number decreases during childhood, resulting in a primordial
follicle pool of 300,000-500,000 follicles at menarche, as a result of atresia
of the majority of the growing follicles (2). After puberty, under the effect
of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), only one follicle is selected to become
the dominant follicle, which will ovulate under the influence of luteinizing
hormone (LH) (3). This process continues throughout life until the primordial
follicle pool is exhausted, resulting in menopause. Menopause is preceded by a
transition period, during which fertility decreases and menstrual cycle become
irregular. This menopausal transition period precedes menopause by a fixed time
interval (4-6). The median age of menopause is variable according to ethnic
origins. However, there is considerable individual variation in the age of
menopause and, subsequently, also in the age of subfertility (5, 6). Hence,
chronological age is a poor predictor of reproductive aging and thus the
ovarian reserve.
To assess the ovarian
reserve, early follicular serum levels of FSH, inhibin B and estradiol (E2)
have been measured. With the decline of the follicle pool, serum levels of
inhibin B and E2 decrease and serum FSH levels rise (7). The changes
of serum levels of these hormones occur relatively late in the reproduction
aging process (8). The assessment of the antral follicle count (AFC), best
predicts the quantitative aspect of ovarian reserve (9). However, measurement
of the AFC requires an additional transvaginal ultrasound examination in the
early follicular phase.
Therefore a serum marker
that reflects the number of follicles that have made the transition from the
primordial pool into the growing follicle pool, and that is not controlled by
gonadotrophins, would benefit both patients and clinicians. In recent years,
accumulated data indicate that anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) may fulfill this
role.
Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH)
In the
middle of the 20th century, Alfred Jost showed that a testicular product
different from testosterone was responsible for the regression of Mullerian
ducts in the male fetus. It is produced by Sertoli cells of the fetal testis (10,
11). In the absence of AMH, Mullerian ducts of both sexes develop into the
uterus, fallopian tubes and upper part of vagina (12, 13).
AMH is a homodimeric
disulfide-linked glycoprotein with a molecular weight of 140 kDa. The gene is
located on the short arm of chromosome 19 in humans, band 19p 13.3 (14). AMH is
strongly expressed in Sertoli cells from testicular differentiation up to
puberty and to a much lesser degree in granulosa cells form birth up to menopause
(15, 16).
Granulosa cells of
primary follicles show homogenous AMH expression; in larger follicles, AMH is
mainly produced in cells near the oocyte and in few cells surrounding the
antrum. AMH continues to be expressed in the growing follicles in the ovary
until they have reached the size of differentiation state at which they are to
be selected by the action of FSH 23. In mouse this occurs at the early antral
stage in small growing follicles (17), and in the human in antral follicle of
size 4-6 mm18. AMH is not expressed in atretic follicle and theca cells (18-21).
The findings of Salmon
et al (22) study on the oocyte regulation of AMH expression in granulosa cells
in mice suggest that oocyte regulation of granulosa cell gene expression occurs
during extended periods of follicle development, and that oocyte regulation of
AMH expression may play a role in intra-and interfollicular coordination of
follicle development.
Control of primordial follicle by AMH
The activation of
primordial follicles and the pace of follicular development are regulated by
both positive and negative factors. AMH is considered as a negative regulator
of the early stages of follicular development (23).
Durlinger et al (24)
investigated whether the effects of AMH were directly on the primordial
follicles. 2-day-old AMH null mice ovaries were cultured in vitro in the
presence of AMH. After 2 days of in vitro exposure to AMH, about 50% of growing
follicles were found, showing that AMH may directly affect the primordial
follicles themselves. Similar results were obtained in in-vitro experiments on
the bovine ovarian cortex (25). These studies suggest that the presence of AMH
acts as a brake on the activation of primordial follicles and the growth of
preantral follicles.
The effects of AMH on
the response of ovarian follicles to FSH during cyclic recruitment in mice was
demonstrated in both in-vitro and in-vivo studies. Durlinger et al. (26) study
demonstrated that follicles are more sensitive to FSH in the absence of AMH.
AMH was found to inhibit the FSH dependent follicle growth in a time dependent
manner (26). This effect of AMH was mainly the result of reduced granulosa cell
proliferations and is consistent with another in-vitro study, in which it was
shown that exogenous AMH reduced aromatase expression and the number of LH
receptors in cultured granulose cells (27).
The earlier study of
Ueno et al (28) showed that AMH inhibits the first meiotic division of
diplotene oocytes in immature rats. However, this has not been confirmed by others
(29). In addition, AMH blocked the proliferation of human granulose-luteal
cells in vitro (30), and the concentration of AMH in follicular fluid was
inversely proportional to mitotic indices of granulosa cells in vivo (31).
Thus, AMH appears to have an autocrine role in the maturation of normal
follicles. Salmon et al. (22) has recently shown that oocytes up-regulate AMH
expression in granulosa cells in a way that is dependent upon the development
stage of the oocyte.
Recently, an
ultrasensitive enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent essay (ELISA) for AMH was developed
(32, 33) with sensitivity as low as 0.1 ng/ml. More recently, a double-antibody
ELISA for AMH has been developed with a detection limit of less than 0.078
ng/ml (34).
Clinical utility of AMH measurement
AMH levels in women are
lower than in men throughout life. In infant and child females AMH serum levels
are almost undetectable at birth (19), with a subtle increase within the first
2-4 years of age, then AMH appears to be stable until adulthood. Later it
decreases as a sign of follicular reserve exhaustion (35). Serum AMH level have
been measured at different times during the menstrual cycle, suggesting
extremely subtle or non existent fluctuation (36, 37). Minimal fluctuations in
serum AMH levels may be consistent with continuous noncyclic growth of small
follicles. Hence, AMH is relatively convenient to determine, especially as it
seems to exhibit a fairly stable expression during the menstrual cycle, making
it an attractive determinant of ovarian activity (38). However, published data
(36, 38) are lacking with regard to day-to-day fluctuation and pulstility.
AMH as a marker of ovarian aging
As discussed above, the
quantitative aspect of ovarian aging is reflected by decline in the size of the
primordial follicle pool. Direct measurement of the primordial follicle pool is
impossible. However, the number of primordial follicles is indirectly reflected
by the number of growing follicles (39). Hence, a factor primarily secreted by
growing follicles will reflect the size of the primordial follicle pool. Sine
AMH is expressed by growing follicles up to selection (40), and can be detected
is serum (41, 42), it is a promising candidate. Recent studies suggest Serum
AMH levels show a reduction throughout reproductive life (42). Undetectable AMH
levels after spontaneous menopause have been reported (35,43,44,77).
Ovariectomy in regularly cycling women is associated with disappearance of AMH
in 3-5 days, demonstrating that circulating AMH is exclusively of ovarian
origin (33, 44).
In young normal
ovulatory woman, early follicular phase hormone measurement at 3 years interval
revealed that serum AMH levels decline significantly whereas serum levels of
FSH and inhibin B and the AFC do not change during this interval (42).
Stratification for age
revealed that both serum AMH levels and the AFC decline with age. Importantly,
a strong correlation of serum AMH levels with AFC was observed. This positive
correlation was later confirmed by (45), who showed a strong correlation
between serum AMH levels and AFC than between AMH and serum levels of inhibin
B, FSH, and E2 on cycle day 3.
The results
of deVert et al (76) also suggest that changes in serum AMH levels occur
relatively early in the sequence of events associated with ovarian aging.
Substantially elevated serum levels of FSH are not found until cycles have
already become irregular (8). Therefore, a marker that already shows a
considerable change when cyclicity is still normal would better identify women
with declining fertility. In a similar study done by Rooij et al (43), it has
been shown that AMH gave the highest accuracy to predict occurrence of
menopausal transition when compared with other markers. Furthermore, compared
to other ovarian markers, only AMH was the only marker of ovarian reserve
sharing a mean longitudinal decline over time (44).
The usefulness of serum
AMH levels as a measurement of ovarian reserve was recently shown in young
women after treatment for childhood cancer (46). Chemotherapy and radiotherapy
treatment may result in loss of primordial follicles. Cancer survivors,
consequently have partial loss of ovarian reserve which is reflected by
increased FSH levels and decreased ovarian volume. Unexpectedly, the numbers of
small central follicles is unchanged (47), a finding that may reflect a low
accuracy and observed dependency of AFC measurements. Nevertheless, serum AMH
levels were decreased in these patients, supporting the use of AMH as an early
predictor of ovarian reserve.
AMH as a marker of ovarian responsiveness
AMH levels are also seen
to decline gradually during FSH administration as part of controlled ovarian
hyperstimulation (COH) (37, 48).
The decrease in AMH in
FSH-treated women might be the result of growth stimulation by FSH of the
follicles that enlarge, thereby losing their AMH expression (2, 23).
Throughout COH, serum
AMH levels correlated positively with the number of small but not larger antral
follicles, and with inhibin B serum levels (45). It was concluded that serum
AMH levels decline gradually during multiple follicular maturation. This was
confirmed in a recent study in which AMH levels in follicular fluid were
evaluated (49). Small follicular (8-12 mm in diameter) secreted AMH at levels
that were approximately three times as high as those of larger follicles (16-20
mm in diameter).
AMH is produced by the
growing antral follicles in the human ovary up to the selection stage (4-6 mm) (18).
It may serve as a serum marker of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in- vitro
fertilization (IVF). Serum AMH showed an excellent to correlation with AFC (42).
Van Rooij et al. (50)
conducted a study showing that the use of AMH serum levels as a measure of
ovarian reserve was tested in women undergoing IVF treatment. The study has
shown that the ovaries of normal responding women contained more growing antral
follicles than ovaries of women with a poor response to IVF treatment. In
addition, AMH serum levels were lower in the poor responders than in normal
responders. Serum AMH levels correlated strongly with AFC, the number of
follicles retrieved, age, inhibin B and FSH. In addition, logistic regression
analysis for prediction of poor response showed that serum AMH levels had a
better prediction value than serum levels of FSH, inhinin B and E2 (51), and
that the prediction values for AMH and AFC were almost identical (50,52). Serum
AMH levels on day 3 may also be of same value in predicting clinical pregnancy
outcome in IVF cycles (51). However, in a recent perspective study (53) it was
reported that AMH serum levels obtained in day 3 during COH for IVF are better
predictors of ovarian response than day 5. However, AMH does not seen to be
useful in the prediction of pregnancy. In a large prospective study done by
Tremellen et al. (54) on 238 women undergoing IVF, it was concluded that AMH
assessment was shown to predict ovarian reserve using a cut-off value of 1.13
ng/ml, with 80% sensitivity and 85% specificity.
AMH levels have also
shown to be 10 folds lower in the cancellation cycles compared with patients
who had a completed IVF cycle (55). AMH seems to be a better marker in
predicting a cancelled cycle compared with FSH or inhibin B. Using a cut-off of
0.1 ng/ml, AMH had 87.5% sensitivity and 72.2% specificity in the prediction of
cancellation (23).
CONCLUSION
The studies
described here indicate that serum AMH levels decrease with age in
premenopausal women. In addition, they suggest that AMH levels reflect the size
of primordial follicle pool. The relative stability of AMH serum levels
indicate that AMH could be used as a marker for ovarian aging and for ovarian
response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Compared to other ovarian tests,
AMH seems to be the best marker reflecting the decline of reproductive
function.
REFERENCES
-
te Velde ER, Scheffer GJ, Dorland M, Broekmans FJ and Fauser BC. Developmental
and endocrine aspects of normal ovarian aging. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 1998;145: 67–73.
-
Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, and Nelson
JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications
for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1342–1346.
-
McGee EA, and Hsueh AJ. Initial and cyclic recruitment of
ovarian follicles. Endocrine Reviews 2000;21: 200–214.
-
den Tonkelaar I, te Velde ER, and Looman CW. Menstrual
cycle length preceding menopause in relation to age at menopause.
Maturitas 1998;29: 115–123.
-
te Velde ER, Dorland M, Broekmans FJ. Age at menopause as
a marker of reproductive ageing. Maturitas 1998; 30: 119-125.
-
te Velde ER and Pearson PL. The variability of female reproductive
ageing. Human Reproduction Update 2002;8: 141–154.
-
Burger HG, Dudley EC, Hopper JL, Shelley JM, Green A,
Smith A, Dennerstein L & Morse C 1995 The endocrinology of
the menopausal transition: a cross-sectional study of a population-based
-
Burger HG, Dudley EC, Hopper JL, Groome N, Guthrie JR,
Green A And Dennerstein L. Prospectively measured levels of serum
follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol, and the dimeric inhibins
during the menopausal transition in a population-based cohort of women.
Journal
of
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism1999; 8: 44025–4030.
-
Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Blankenstein M,
Fauser BC,de Jong FH and te Velde ER. The number of antral follicles
in normal women with proven fertility is the best reflection of reproductive
age. Hum
Reprod 2003;18: 700–706.
-
Josso
N, Cate RL, Picard JY, Vigier B, di Clemente N,Wilson C, Imbeaud
S, Pepinsky RB, Guerrier D, Boussin L, Legeai L and Carre´-Euse`be D. Anti-mullerian hormone:
the Jost factor. Recent Progress in Hormone Research 1993;48: 1–59.
-
Lee
MM and Donahoe PK. Mullerian inhibiting substance: a gonadal hormone
with multiple functions. Endocrine Reviews1993; 14: 152–164.
-
Knebelmann
B, Boussin L, Guerrier D, Legeai L, Kahn A, Josso N and Picard, JY.
Anti-Müllerian hormone Bruxelles: a nonsense mutation associated with the
persistent Müllerian duct syndrome. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America 1991; 88: 3767-71.
-
Behringer RR, Finegold MJ and Cate RL. Müllerian inhibiting substance
function during mammalian sexual development. Cell 1994; 79:
415-425.
-
Cohen-Haguenauer
O, Picard Mattei JY, Mattei MG, Serero S, Nguyen VC, de Tand MF,
Guerrier D, Hors-Cayla MC, Josso N and Frezal J. Mapping of the gene for
anti-Müllerian
hormone to the short arm of human chromosome 19. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics
1987; 44: 2–6.
-
Rey
R, Lukas-Croisier C, Lasala C & Bedecarras P AMH/MIS: what
we know already about the gene, the protein and its regulation.
Molecular and Cellular
Endocrinology 2003; 15: 21-31.
-
Teixeira
J, Maheswaran S and Donahoe PK. Müllerian inhibiting substance: an instructive
developmental hormone with diagnostic and possible therapeutic applications.
Endocrine Reviews 2001; 22: 657–674.
-
Munsterberg
A and Lovell-Badge R. Expression of the mouse anti-müllerian hormone gene
suggests a role in both male and female sexual differentiation. Development
1991; 113: 613–624.
-
Weenen
C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, Visser JA, Kramer
P, Fauser BC and Themmen, AP. Anti-Müllerian hormone expression pattern
in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle
recruitment. Molecular
Human Reproduction 2004; 10: 77-83.
-
Rajpert-De
Meyts E, Jorgensen N, Graem N, Müller J, Cate RL and Skakkebaek NE. Expression
of anti-Müllerian hormone during normal and pathological gonadal development:
association with differentiation of Sertoli and granulosa cells. Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1999; 84: 3836–3844.
-
Baarends
WM, Uilenbroek JT, Kramer P, Hoogerbrugge JW, van Leeuwen EC, Themmen
AP and Grootegoed JA. Anti-Müllerian hormone and anti-Müllerian hormone type II
receptor messenger ribonucleic acid expression in rat ovaries during postnatal
development, the estrous cycle, and gonadotropin-induced follicle growth.
Endocrinology 1995; 136: 4951–4962.
-
Rey
R, Sabourin JC, Venara M, Long WQ, Jaubert F, Zeller WP, Duvillard
P, Chemes H and Bidart JM. Anti-Müllerian hormone is a specific marker
of sertoli- and granulosa-cell origin in gonadal tumors. Human Pathology
2000; 31: 1202-8.
-
Salmon
NA, Handyside AH and Joyce IM. Oocyte regulation of anti-Müllerian hormone
expression in granulosa cells during ovarian follicle development in mice.
Developmental Biology 2004; 266:201–208.
-
LaMarca
Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) in female reproduction: is measurement of
circulating AMH a useful tool? Clinical endocrinology 2006; 64: 603-610.
-
Durlinger
AL, Gruijters MJ, Kramer P, Karels B, Ingraham HA, Nachtigal MW,
Uilenbroek JT, Grootegoed JA and Themmen AP. Anti-Müllerian hormone inhibits initiation of
primordial follicle growth in the mouse ovary. Endocrinology 2002; 143:
1076–1084.
-
Gigli
I, Cushman RA, Wahl CM and Fortune JE. Evidence for a role for anti-Müllerian
hormone in the suppression of follicle activation in mouse ovaries and bovine ovarian cortex grafted beneath the chick chorioallantoic membrane. Molecular
Reproduction and Development 2005; 71: 480-8.
-
Durlinger
AL, Gruijters MJ, Kramer P, Karels B, Kumar TR, Matzuk MM, Rose UM,
de Jong FH, Uilenbroek JT, Grootegoed JA and Themmen AP. Anti-Müllerian hormone attenuates
the effects of FSH on follicle development in the mouse ovary. Endocrinology
2001; 142: 4891–4899.
-
di
Clemente N, Goxe B, Rémy JJ, Cate RL, Josso N, Vigier B and Salesse R.
Inhibitory effect of AMH upon aromatase activity and LH receptors of granulosa
cells of rat and porcine immature ovaries. Endocrine 1994; 2: 553–558.
-
Ueno
S, Manganaro TF and Donahoe PK. Human recombinant Müllerian inhibiting
substance inhibition of rat oocyte meiosis is reversed by epidermal growth
factor in vitro. Endocrinology 1988; 123: 1652–1659.
-
Tsafriri
A, Picard JY and Josso N. Immunopurified anti- Müllerian hormone does not
inhibit spontaneous resumption of meiosis in vitro of rat oocytes. Biological
Reproduction 1988; 38: 481–485.
-
Kim
JH, Seibel MM, MacLaughlin DT, Donahoe PK, Ransil BJ, Hametz PA and
Richards CJ. The inhibitory effects of Müllerian-inhibiting substance on epidermal
growth factor induced proliferation and progesterone production of human
granulosa-luteal cells. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1992;
75: 911–917.
-
Seifer
DB, MacLaughlin DT, Penzias AS, Behrman HR, Asmundson L, Donahoe
PK, Haning RVJ and Flynn SD. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-induced
differences
in
granulosa cell cycle kinetics are associated with alterations in
follicular fluid müllerian-inhibiting substance and androgen content. Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism 1993; 76: 711–714.
-
Rey
RA, Belville C, Nihoul-Fekete C, Michel-Calemard L, Forest MG, Lahlou
N, Jaubert F, Mowszowicz I, David M, Saka N, Bouvattier C, Bertrand AM,
Lecointre C, Soskin S, Cabrol S, Crosnier H, Leger J, Lortat-Jacob S, Nicolino
M, Rabl W,
Toledo SP, Bas F, Gompel A, Czernichow P, Josso N, Chatelain P, Rappaport
R and Morel Y. Evaluation of gonadal function in 107 intersex patients
by
means of
serum antimüllerian hormone measurement. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and
Metabolism 1999; 84: 627–631.
-
Long
WQ, Ranchin V, Pautier P, Belville C, Denizot P, Cailla H, Lhomme
C, Picard JY, Bidart JM and Rey R. Detection of minimal levels of serum
anti-Müllerian
hormone during follow-up of patients with ovarian granulosa cell tumor by means
of a highly sensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism 2000; 85: 540–544.
-
Al-Qahtani
A, Muttukrishna S, Appasamy M, Johns J, Cranfield M, Visser JA, Themmen
AP and Groome NP. Development of a sensitive enzyme immunoassay for anti-Müllerian
hormone and the evaluation of potential clinical applications in males and
females. Clinical Endocrinology 2005; 63: 267–273.
-
Lee
MM, Donahoe PK, Hasegawa T, Silverman B, Crist GB, Best S, Hasegawa
Y, Noto RA, Schoenfeld D and MacLaughlin DT. Müllerian inhibiting substance in humans:
normal levels from infancy to adulthood. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and
Metabolism 1996; 81: 571–576.
-
Cook
CL, Siow Y, Taylor S and Fallat ME. Serum müllerian inhibiting substance levels
during normal menstrual cycles. Fertility and Sterility 2000; 73: 859–861.
-
La Marca, A, Malmusi, S, Giulini, S, Tamaro, LF, Orvieto, R, Levratti,
P and Volpe, A. Anti-Müllerian hormone plasma levels in spontaneous menstrual
cycle and during treatment with FSH to induce ovulation. Human Reproduction
2004; 19: 2738–2741.
-
Laven,
JS, Mulders, AG, Visser, JA, Themmen, AP, de Jong, FH and Fauser,
BC. Anti-Müllerian hormone serum concentrations in normoovulatory and anovulatory women of
reproductive age. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2004; 89:
318–323.
-
Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Dorland M, Habbema JD,
Looman CW, te Velde ER. Antral
follicle counts by transvaginal ultrasonography are related to age in women
with proven natural fertility. Fertil
Steril. 1999 Nov;72(5):845-51.
-
Durlinger
ALL, Visser JA and Themmen APN. Regulation of ovarian function:
the role of anti-Mullerian hormone. Reproduction 2002;124: 601–609.
-
Hudson
PL, Dougas I, Donahoe PK, Cate RL, Epstein J, Pepinsky RB and MacLaughlin
DT. An immunoassay to detect human mullerian inhibiting substance in
males and
females during normal development. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
and Metabolism 1990;70: 16–22.
-
Lee
MM, Donahoe PK, Hasegawa T, Silverman B, Crist GB, Best S, Hasegawa
Y, Noto RA, Schoenfeld D and MacLaughlin DT. Mullerian inhibiting substance
in humans:
normal levels from infancy to adulthood. J Clin Endocrinol Metabolism
1996; 81: 571–6.
-
Van
Rooij I A, Tonkelaar I, Broekmans F J, Looman C W, Schfferde G J, Jong
F H, Themmente AP, te Velde E R. Anti-Mullerian hormone is a promising predictor
for
the occurrence of the menopausal transition. Menopause 2004; 11: 601-6
-
La
Marca A, De Leo V, Giulini S, Orvieto R, Malmusi S, Giannella L and
Volpe A. Anti-Müllerian hormone in premenopausal women and after spontaneous or surgically
induced menopause. J Soc Gynecol Investigation 2005; 12: 545–8.
-
Fanchin
R, Schonauer LM, Righini C, Guibourdenche J, Frydman R and Taieb
J. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular
status
than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. Hum Reprod
2003; 18: 323–27.
-
Jenny
A. Visser, Visser Ja, de Jong FH, Laven JSE, Themmen APN. Anti-Mullerian
hormone: A new marker of ovarian function. Reproduction and fertility
2006; 131:1-9.
-
Bath
LE, Wallace WH, Shaw MP, Fitzpatrick C and Anderson RA. Depletion
of ovarian reserve in young women after treatment for cancer in childhood:
detection
by
anti-Mullerian hormone, inhibinB and ovarian ultrasound. Hum Reprod
2003; 18:2368–74.
-
Fanchin
R, Schonauer LM, Righini C, Frydman N, Frydman R and Taieb J. Serum
anti-Müllerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum
Reprod 2003; 18: 328–32.
-
Fanchin
R, Louafi N, Mendez Lozano, DH, Frydman, N, Frydman, R and Taieb,
J. Per-follicle measurements indicate that anti-müllerian hormone secretion is
modulated by the extent of follicular development and luteinization and may
reflect qualitatively the ovarian follicular status. Fertil Steril 2005; 84:
167–73.
-
Van
Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, Jong
FH and Themmen AP. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure
of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 3065-71.
-
Hazout
A, Bouchard P, Seifer DB, Aussage P, Junca AM and Cohen-Bacrie P.
Serum antimüllerian hormone/müllerian inhibiting substance appears to be
a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome
than
follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol. Fertil Steril
2004; 82: 1323-9.
-
Eldar-Geva
T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T,
Gal M, Zylber-Haran E and Margalioth EJ. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Müllerian
hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography
as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3178-83.
-
Penarrubia
J, Fabregues F, Manau D, Creus M, Casals G, Casamitjana R,Carmona
F, Vanrell JA and Balasch J. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Mullerian
hormone
serum
concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy
in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing
hormone agonist gonadotropin treatment. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 915–922.
-
Tremellen, KP, Kolo, M., Gilmore, A Lekamge, DN. Antimüllerian
hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2005;45: 20–24.
-
Muttukrishna,
S, Suharjono, H., McGarrigle, H and Sathanandan, M. Inhibin B and
anti-Müllerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients?
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004;111: 1248–1253.
Copyright © Middle East Fertility Society
|