Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

  • 제43권3호
  • /
  • Pages.139-145
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2233-8233(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-8241(eISSN)
대한생식의학회 (The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The meaning of anti-Müllerian hormone levels in patients at a high risk of poor ovarian response

  • Park, Hyun Jong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Gumi Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Geun Ho (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Gumi Medical Center) ;
  • Gong, Du Sik (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Gumi Medical Center) ;
  • Yoon, Tae Ki (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fertility Center of CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Lee, Woo Sik (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fertility Center of CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University)
  • 투고 : 2016.03.26
  • 심사 : 2016.05.18
  • 발행 : 2016.09.22
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Measurements of ovarian reserve play an important role in predicting the clinical results of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The ideal markers of ovarian reserve for clinical applications should have high specificity in order to determine genuine poor responders. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels, antral follicle count, and serum anti-$M{\ddot{u}}llerian$ hormone (AMH) levels have been suggested as ovarian reserve tests that may fulfill this requirement, with serum AMH levels being the most promising parameter. Serum AMH levels have been suggested to be a predictor of clinical pregnancy in ART for older women, who are at a high risk for decreased ovarian response. We reviewed the prognostic significance of ovarian reserve tests for patients undergoing ART treatment, with a particular focus on the significance of serum AMH levels in patients at a high risk of poor ovarian response.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Spira A. The decline of fecundity with age. Maturitas 1988;Suppl 1:15-22.
  2. te Velde ER, Pearson PL. The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:141-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.2.141
  3. Roest J, van Heusden AM, Mous H, Zeilmaker GH, Verhoeff A. The ovarian response as a predictor for successful in vitro fertilization treatment after the age of 40 years. Fertil Steril 1996;66:969-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58691-9
  4. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e9-e17.
  5. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2002;77:328-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02983-1
  6. Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.030
  7. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092
  8. Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Clewes J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N. Establishing the intercycle variability of threedimensional ultrasonographic predictors of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2008;90:2126-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.028
  9. Scott RT Jr, Hofmann GE, Oehninger S, Muasher SJ. Intercycle variability of day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels and its effect on stimulation quality in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1990;54:297-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)53707-8
  10. Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Lambalk CB, Schoemaker J. Intercycle variability of ovarian reserve tests: results of a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2004;19:590-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh119
  11. Esposito MA, Coutifaris C, Barnhart KT. A moderately elevated day 3 FSH concentration has limited predictive value, especially in younger women. Hum Reprod 2002;17:118-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.1.118
  12. Scott RT Jr, Elkind-Hirsch KE, Styne-Gross A, Miller KA, Frattarelli JL. The predictive value for in vitro fertility delivery rates is greatly impacted by the method used to select the threshold between normal and elevated basal follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril 2008;89:868-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.100
  13. Thum MY, Abdalla HI, Taylor D. Relationship between women’s age and basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels with aneuploidy risk in in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 2008;90:315-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.063
  14. Massie JA, Burney RO, Milki AA, Westphal LM, Lathi RB. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone as a predictor of fetal aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2008;90:2351-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.041
  15. Roberts JE, Spandorfer S, Fasouliotis SJ, Kashyap S, Rosenwaks Z. Taking a basal follicle-stimulating hormone history is essential before initiating in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005;83:37-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.062
  16. Evers JL, Slaats P, Land JA, Dumoulin JC, Dunselman GA. Elevated levels of basal estradiol-17beta predict poor response in patients with normal basal levels of follicle-stimulating hormone undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1998;69:1010-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00080-6
  17. Licciardi FL, Liu HC, Rosenwaks Z. Day 3 estradiol serum concentrations as prognosticators of ovarian stimulation response and pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1995;64:991-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)57916-3
  18. Smotrich DB, Widra EA, Gindoff PR, Levy MJ, Hall JL, Stillman RJ. Prognostic value of day 3 estradiol on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1995;64:1136-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)57974-6
  19. Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Bancsi LF, Te Velde ER, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.011
  20. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:113-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp036
  21. Hazout A, Bouchard P, Seifer DB, Aussage P, Junca AM, Cohen-Bacrie P. Serum antimullerian hormone/mullerian-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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.03.061
  22. Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA, Thomas CM, Braat DD. Antimullerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2007;87:223-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.06.019
  23. Takahashi C, Fujito A, Kazuka M, Sugiyama R, Ito H, Isaka K. Anti- Mullerian hormone substance from follicular fluid is positively associated with success in oocyte fertilization during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008;89:586-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.080
  24. Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G. Basal level of anti-Mullerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2022-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del127
  25. Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I, Trimarchi JR, Lambert-Messerlian G, Seifer DB, et al. Mullerian inhibiting substance levels at the time of HCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod 2006;21:159-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a002489
  26. Gnoth C, Schuring AN, Friol K, Tigges J, Mallmann P, Godehardt E. Relevance of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in a routine IVF program. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1359-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den108
  27. Elgindy EA, El-Haieg DO, El-Sebaey A. Anti-Mullerian hormone: correlation of early follicular, ovulatory and midluteal levels with ovarian response and cycle outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril 2008;89:1670-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.040
  28. Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod 2005;20:3178-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei203
  29. Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:26-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms041
  30. Tal R, Tal O, Seifer BJ, Seifer DB. Antimullerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2015;103:119-30.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.041
  31. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles. Implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2414-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem204
  32. Lukaszuk K, Liss J, Kunicki M, Jakiel G, Wasniewski T, Woclawek-Potocka I, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a strong predictor of live birth in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol 2014;14:176-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repbio.2014.03.004
  33. Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. The predictive accuracy of anti-Mullerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:560-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu003
  34. Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Manau D, Creus M, Casals G, Casamitjana R, et al. 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;20:915-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh718
  35. Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, Sathanandan M. Inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients? BJOG 2004;111:1248-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00452.x
  36. McIlveen M, Skull JD, Ledger WL. Evaluation of the utility of multiple endocrine and ultrasound measures of ovarian reserve in the prediction of cycle cancellation in a high-risk IVF population. Hum Reprod 2007;22:778-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del435
  37. Kim SK, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. What number of oocytes is appropriate for defining poor ovarian response? Yonsei Med J 2015;56:482-9. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2015.56.2.482
  38. Kavoussi SK, Odenwald KC, Boehnlein LM, Summers-Colquitt RB, Pool TB, Swain JE, et al. Antimullerian hormone as a predictor of good-quality supernumerary blastocyst cryopreservation among women with levels <1 ng/mL versus 1-4 ng/mL. Fertil Steril 2015;104:633-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.007
  39. Wang JG, Douglas NC, Nakhuda GS, Choi JM, Park SJ, Thornton MH, et al. The association between anti-Mullerian hormone and IVF pregnancy outcomes is influenced by age. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;21:757-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.041
  40. Sahmay S, Oncul M, Tuten A, Tok A, Acikgoz AS, Cepni I. Antimullerian hormone levels as a predictor of the pregnancy rate in women of advanced reproductive age. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:1469-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0324-y
  41. Gomez R, Schorsch M, Hahn T, Henke A, Hoffmann I, Seufert R, et al. The influence of AMH on IVF success. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;293:667-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3901-0
  42. Park HJ, Lyu SW, Seok HH, Yoon TK, Lee WS. Anti-Mullerian hormone levels as a predictor of clinical pregnancy in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer cycles in patients over 40 years of age. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2015;42:143-8. https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2015.42.4.143
  43. Friden B, Sjoblom P, Menezes J. Using anti-Mullerian hormone to identify a good prognosis group in women of advanced reproductive age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011;51:411-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01374.x
  44. Maheshwari A, Gibreel A, Bhattacharya S. Screening for early ovarian ageing. In: Bewley S, Ledger W, Nikolaou D, editors. Reproductive ageing. London: RCOG Press; 2009. p.201-10.
  45. Loh JS, Maheshwari A. Anti-Mullerian hormone: is it a crystal ball for predicting ovarian ageing? Hum Reprod 2011;26:2925-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der271

피인용 문헌

  1. Age-dependent decline of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in a large population of Indian fertile women as measured using the automated VIDAS® AMH assay vol.6, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4103/fsr.fsr_35_19
  2. GONADOTROPINS IN OVULATION INDUCTION vol.8, pp.18, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2019/333
  3. Acupuncture for in vitro fertilization in women with poor ovarian response: a systematic review vol.9, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2020.02.003