Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

  • 제49권3호
  • /
  • Pages.202-209
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2233-8233(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-8241(eISSN)
대한생식의학회 (The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Correlation of oocyte number with serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels measured by either Access or Elecsys in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles

  • Jeong, Hye Gyeong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Seul Ki (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Jung Ryeol (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Jee, Byung Chul (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2022.01.06
  • 심사 : 2022.04.15
  • 발행 : 2022.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the correlation of oocyte number with serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels measured by two automated methods (Access or Elecsys) in fresh stimulated in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Methods: In this retrospective study at a university hospital, data were collected from 243 fresh stimulated IVF cycles performed from August 2016 to December 2020. The serum AMH level was measured by Access in 120 cycles and by Elecsys in 123 cycles. The cut-off of serum AMH for prediction of poor responders (three or fewer oocytes) or high responders (15 or more oocytes) was calculated by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: For the two automated methods, the following equations were derived: total oocyte number=2.378+1.418×(Access-AMH) (r=0.645, p<0.001) and total oocyte number=2.417+2.163×(Elecsys-AMH) (r=0.686, p<0.001). The following combined equation could be derived: (Access-AMH)=0.028+1.525×(Elecsys-AMH). To predict poor responders, the cut-off of Access-AMH was 1.215 ng/mL (area under the curve [AUC], 0.807; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.730-0.884; p<0.001), and the cut-off of Elecsys-AMH was 1.095 ng/mL (AUC, 0.848; 95% CI, 0.773-0.923; p<0.001). To predict high responders, the cut-off of Access-AMH was 3.450 ng/mL (AUC, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.862-0.981; p<0.001), and the cut-off of Elecsys-AMH was 2.500 ng/mL (AUC, 0.884; 95% CI, 0.778-0.991; p<0.001). Conclusion: Both automated methods for serum AMH measurement showed a good correlation with oocyte number and good performance for predicting poor and high responders in fresh stimulated IVF cycles. The Access method usually yielded higher measured serum AMH levels than the Elecsys method.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:370-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt062
  2. Weenen C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, Visser JA, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone expression pattern in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle recruitment. Mol Hum Reprod 2004;10:77-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gah015
  3. Bonifacio M, Bradley CK, Karia S, Livingstone M, Bowman MC, McArthur SJ. The original Beckman Coulter Generation II assay significantly underestimates AMH levels compared with the revised protocol. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015;32:1691-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0579-y
  4. Kevenaar ME, Meerasahib MF, Kramer P, van de Lang-Born BM, de Jong FH, Groome NP, et al. Serum anti-mullerian hormone levels reflect the size of the primordial follicle pool in mice. Endocrinology 2006;147:3228-34. https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2005-1588
  5. 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
  6. Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig LB. Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril 2011;95:170-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.006
  7. Nelson SM, Fleming R, Gaudoin M, Choi B, Santo-Domingo K, Yao M. Antimullerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as prognostic indicators in a personalized prediction model of live birth. Fertil Steril 2015;104:325-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.032
  8. Magnusson A, Olerod G, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Bergh C. The correlation between AMH assays differs depending on actual AMH levels. Hum Reprod Open 2017;2017:hox026.
  9. Pacheco A, Cruz M, Iglesias C, Garcia-Velasco JA. Very low anti-Mullerian hormone concentrations are not an independent predictor of embryo quality and pregnancy rate. Reprod Biomed Online 2018;37:113-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.03.015
  10. Ovarian Stimulation TEGGO, Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for VF/ICSI. Hum Reprod Open 2020;2020:hoaa009. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa009
  11. Nelson SM, La Marca A. The journey from the old to the new AMH assay: how to avoid getting lost in the values. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;23:411-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.011
  12. Wallace AM, Faye SA, Fleming R, Nelson SM. A multicentre evaluation of the new Beckman Coulter anti-Mullerian hormone immunoassay (AMH Gen II). Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48(Pt 4):370-3. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2011.010172
  13. Craciunas L, Roberts SA, Yates AP, Smith A, Fitzgerald C, Pemberton PW. Modification of the Beckman-Coulter second-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay protocol improves the reliability of serum antimullerian hormonemeasurement. Fertil Steril 2015;103:554-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.052
  14. Nelson SM, Pastuszek E, Kloss G, Malinowska I, Liss J, Lukaszuk A, et al. Two new automated, compared with two enzyme-linked immunosorbent, antimullerian hormone assays. Fertil Steril 2015;104:1016-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.024
  15. Asada Y, Tsuiki M, Sonohara M, Fukunaga N, Hattori Y, Inoue D, et al. Performance of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels measured by Beckman Coulter Access AMH assay to predict oocyte yield following controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Reprod Med Biol 2019;18:273-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12271
  16. Gassner D, Jung R. First fully automated immunoassay for anti-Mullerian hormone. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:1143-52.
  17. Anckaert E, Oktem M, Thies A, Cohen-Bacrie M, Daan NM, Schiettecatte J, et al. Multicenter analytical performance evaluation of a fully automated anti-Mullerian hormone assay and reference interval determination. Clin Biochem 2016;49:260-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.10.008
  18. Pearson K, Long M, Prasad J, Wu YY, Bonifacio M. Assessment of the Access AMH assay as an automated, high-performance replacement for the AMH Generation II manual ELISA. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2016;14:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0143-3
  19. Tadros T, Tarasconi B, Nassar J, Benhaim JL, Taieb J, Fanchin R. New automated antimullerian hormone assays are more reliable than the manual assay in patients with reduced antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1800-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.045
  20. La Marca A, Tolani AD, Capuzzo M. The interchangeability of two assays for the measurement of anti-Mullerian hormone when personalizing the dose of FSH in in-vitro fertilization cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol 2021;37:372-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1810659
  21. Li H, Robertson DM, Burns C, Ledger WL. Challenges in measuring AMH in the clinical setting. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021;12:691432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.691432
  22. Homburg R, Rao U, Malamas F, Palouki P, Gudi A, Shah A, et al. Automated anti-Mullerian hormone measurement: data review to provide insights and interpretation. Gynecol Endocrinol 2021;37:511-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1785419
  23. 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
  24. Broer SL, Dolleman M, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt PM, et al. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013;100:420-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.024
  25. Lee JE, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim KC, Lee WD, et al. Clinical application of anti-Mullerian hormone as a predictor of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation outcome. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012;39:176-81. https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2012.39.4.176
  26. Baker VL, Gracia C, Glassner MJ, Schnell VL, Doody K, Coddington CC, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the Access AMH antimullerian hormone assay for the prediction of antral follicle count and poor ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2018;110:506-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.031
  27. Iliodromiti S, Salje B, Dewailly D, Fairburn C, Fanchin R, Fleming R, et al. Non-equivalence of anti-Mullerian hormone automated assays-clinical implications for use as a companion diagnostic for individualised gonadotrophin dosing. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1710-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex219
  28. Tan EC, Chincholkar P, Yu SL, Lim SL, Renuka R, Yong TT, et al. Comparison of automated anti-Mullerian hormone assays and antral follicle count in predicting ovarian response during ovarian stimulation. Fertil Reprod 2019;1:99-105. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2661318219500099
  29. Grynnerup AG, Lossl K, Pilsgaard F, Lunding SA, Storgaard M, Bogstad JW, et al. Prediction of the lower serum anti-Mullerian hormone threshold for ovarian stimulation prior to in-vitro fertilization using the Elecsys® AMH assay: a prospective observational study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2019;17:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0452-4