Predicting the ovarian response: towards a determinant model and implications for practice.
AFC
AMH
ART
Ovarian reserve test
Prediction models
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Nov 2023
03 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
30
03
2023
accepted:
16
10
2023
medline:
3
11
2023
pubmed:
3
11
2023
entrez:
3
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To improve the reliability of prediction models for ovarian response to stimulation in ART. A multicenter retrospective cohort study. Twelve reproductive centers. A total of 25,854 controlled ovarian stimulations between 2005 and 2016, including cycles cancelled for inadequate response, were included. None. Precision of the prediction of the number of oocytes at ovarian pickup and of cancellation rate for poor ovarian response. Both AMH and antral follicle count exhibit a non-linear effect on the oocyte yield, with a linear relationship after log-transformation. After adjustment for age, BMI, and center, ovarian response observed in a previous stimulation was found to be the best predictor, followed by AMH and AFC. The zero-inflated binomial negative model showed that predictors of cycle cancellation and number of oocytes at retrieval were different, and assimilating cancellation to zero oocyte greatly reduces the determination of the model. Our model was characterized by the best ever reached determination (R A substantial improvement of the ovarian response prediction is possible in modelling the possible cancellation decision, followed by the oocyte retrieval itself, according to an appropriate model based on previous stimulation and non-linear effects of AMH and AFC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37921971
doi: 10.1007/s10815-023-02975-w
pii: 10.1007/s10815-023-02975-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(1):124–40.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt037
pubmed: 24077980
Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Parra J, Pellicer A, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, Bosch E, Garcia-Velasco J. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicentre multinational analysis including ∼15,000 women. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(4):661–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.039
pubmed: 30196963
Arvis P, Massin N, Lehert P. Effect of recombinant LH supplementation on cumulative live birth rate compared with FSH alone in poor ovarian responders: a large, real-world study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2021;42(3):546–54.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.08.035
pubmed: 33431337
Dewailly D, Lujan ME, Carmina E, Cedars MI, Laven J, Norman RJ, Escobar Morreale HF. Definition and significance of polycystic ovarian morphology: a task force report from the Androgen Excess and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Society. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:334–52.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt061
pubmed: 24345633
La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, Stabile G, Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2):113–30.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmp036
pubmed: 19793843
Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, Eijkemans MJ, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ, IMPORT study group. 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(1):26–36.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms041
pubmed: 23188168
Iliodromiti S, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. Technical and performance characteristics of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count as biomarkers of ovarian response. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(6):698–710.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu062
pubmed: 25489055
Arvis P, Rongières C, Pirrello O, Lehert P. Reliability of AMH and AFC measurements and their correlation: a large multicenter study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39:1045–53.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-022-02449-5
pubmed: 35243569
pmcid: 9107554
Rosen MP, Johnstone E, McCulloch CE, Schuh-Huerta SM, Sternfeld B, Reijo-Pera RA, Cedars MI. A characterization of the relationship of ovarian reserve markers with age. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(1):238–43.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.031
pubmed: 22130324
Andersen AN, Witjes H, Gordon K, Mannaerts B. Xpect investigators, Predictive factors of ovarian response and clinical outcome after IVF/ICSI following a rFSH/GnRH. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3413–23.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/der318
pubmed: 21954280
Arce JC, La Marca A, Mirner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. AntiMüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(6):1644–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.048
pubmed: 23394782
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(6):685–718.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dml034
pubmed: 16891297
Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):46–54.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq034
pubmed: 20667894
Li HW, Lee VC, Lau EY, Yeung WS, Ho PC, Ng EH. Ovarian response and cumulative live birth rate of women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation who had discordant anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count measurements: a retrospective study. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e108493.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108493
pubmed: 25313856
pmcid: 4196774
Panchal S, Nagori C. Comparison of anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count for assessment of ovarian reserve. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2012;5(3):274–8.
doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.106340
pubmed: 23531919
pmcid: 3604835
Nelson SM, Klein BM, Arce JC. Comparison of antiMüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertility clinics in two multicentre trials. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):923–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.114
pubmed: 25624196
Klenov V, Jungheim E. Antimullerian Hormone (AMH) is a better predictor of response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) than antral follicle count (AFC) in women with discordant markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:e123–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.370
Zhang Y, Xu Y, Xue Q, Shang J, Yang X, Shan X, Kuai Y, Wang S, Zeng C. Discordance between antral follicle counts and anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17(1):51.
doi: 10.1186/s12958-019-0497-4
pubmed: 31272468
pmcid: 6610959
Himabindu Y, Sriharibabu M, Gopinathan K, Satish U, Louis TF, Gopinath P. Anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproduction. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6(1):27–31.
doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.112377
pubmed: 23869147
pmcid: 3713572
Tsakos E, Tolikas A, Daniilidis A, Asimakopoulos B. Predictive value of anti-Müllerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and antral follicle count on the outcome of ovarian stimulation in women following GnRH-antagonist protocol for IVF/ET. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(6):1249–53.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3332-3
pubmed: 25001569
Brodin T, Hadziosmanovic N, Berglund L, Olovsson M, Holte J. Comparing four ovarian reserve markers--associations with ovarian response and live births after assisted reproduction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(10):1056–63.
doi: 10.1111/aogs.12710
pubmed: 26184379
Ashrafi M, Hemat M, Arabipoor A, Salman Yazdi R, Bahman-Abadi A, Cheraghi R. Predictive values of anti-Müllerian hormone, antral follicle count and ovarian response prediction index (ORPI) for assisted reproductive technology outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(1):82–8.
doi: 10.1080/01443615.2016.1225025
pubmed: 27976974
Hamdine O, Eijkemans MJ, Lentjes EW, Torrance HL, Macklon NS, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ. Ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonist treatment for IVF using anti-Müllerian hormone. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(1):170–8.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu266
pubmed: 25355590
Moon KY, Kim H, Lee JY, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim KC, Lee WD, Lim JH, Kim SH. Nomogram to predict the number of oocytes retrieved in controlled ovarian stimulation. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2016;43(2):112–8.
doi: 10.5653/cerm.2016.43.2.112
pubmed: 27358830
pmcid: 4925866
Oliveira JB, Franco JG Jr. The ovarian response prediction index (ORPI) as a clinical internal quality control to prevent ovarian hyperstimualtion syndrome. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2016;20(3):91–2.
pubmed: 27584597
pmcid: 5264369
Selcuk S, Bilgic BE, Kilicci C, Kucukbas M, Cam C, Kutlu HT, Karateke A. Comparison of ovarian responsiveness tests with outcome of assisted reproductive technology - a retrospective analysis. Arch Med Sci. 2018;14(4):851–9.
pubmed: 30002704
Oliveira JB, Baruffi RL, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Nascimento AM, Vagnini L, Ricci J, Cavagna M, Franco JG Jr. A new ovarian response prediction index (ORPI): implications for individualised controlled ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:94.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-10-94
pubmed: 23171004
pmcid: 3566907
Baker VL, Luke B, Brown MB, Alvero R, Frattarelli JL, Usadi R, Grainger DA, Armstrong AY. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting probability of pregnancy and live birth with in vitro fertilization: an analysis of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1410–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.07.986
pubmed: 19740463
Dhillon RK, McLernon DJ, Smith PP, Fishel S, Dowell K, Deeks JJ, Bhattacharya S, Coomarasamy A. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):84–92.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev268
pubmed: 26498177
Nijman SWJ, Groenhof TKJ, Hoogland J, Bots ML, Brandjes M, Jacobs JJL, Asselbergs FW, Moons KGM, Debray TPA. Real-time imputation of missing predictor values improved the application of prediction models in daily practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:22–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.003
pubmed: 33482294
Badawy A, Wageah A, El Gharib M, Osman EE. Prediction and diagnosis of poor ovarian response: the dilemma. J Reprod Infertil. 2011;12(4):241–8.
pubmed: 23926510
pmcid: 3719310
Singh N, Dalal V, Kriplani A, Malhotra N, Mahey R, Perumal V. Empty follicle syndrome: a challenge to physician. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018;11(3):274–8.
doi: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_61_17
pubmed: 30568358
pmcid: 6262670
ABM, 2016. https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2017/donnees/procreation/01-amp/synthese.htm .
Polyzos N, Drakopoulos P, Parra J, Pellicer A, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro ferrtilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including ~15,000 women. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:661–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.039
pubmed: 30196963
Lee RWK, Khin LW, Hendricks MS, Tan HH, Nadarajah S, Tee NWS, Loh SF, Tai BC, Chan JK. Ovarian biomarkers predict controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilisation treatment in Singapore. Singap Med J. 2020;61(9):463–8.
doi: 10.11622/smedj.2020130
Zhou SJ, Zhao MJ, Li C, Su X. The comparison of evaluative effectiveness between antral follicle count/age ratio and ovarian response prediction index for the ovarian reserve and response functions in infertile women. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(36):e21979.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021979
pubmed: 32899038
Kwee J, Elting ME, Schats R, McDonnell J, Lambalk CB. Ovarian volume and antral follicle count for the prediction of low and hyper responders with in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:9.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-5-9
pubmed: 17362511
pmcid: 1847823
Al-Azemi M, Killick SR, Duffy S, Pye C, Refaat B, Hill N, Ledger W. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(2):414–22.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq339
pubmed: 21147822
Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, Yildiz S, Mutlu I, Arisoy O, Oktem M. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-Müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(5):657–65.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-9975-3
pubmed: 23508679
pmcid: 3663963
Oehninger S, Nelson SM, Verweij P, Stegmann BJ. Predictive factors for ovarian response in a corifollitropin alfa/GnRH antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:117.
doi: 10.1186/s12958-015-0113-1
pubmed: 26520396
pmcid: 4628292
Biasoni V, Patriarca A, Dalmasso P, Bertagna A, Manieri C, Benedetto C, Revelli A. Ovarian sensitivity index is strongly related to circulating AMH and may be used to predict ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins in IVF. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:112.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-9-112
pubmed: 21824441
pmcid: 3162895
Yadav V, Malhotra N, Mahey R, Singh N, Kriplani A. Ovarian Sensitivity Index (OSI): validating the use of a marker for ovarian responsiveness in IVF. J Reprod Infertil. 2019;20(2):83–8.
pubmed: 31058052
pmcid: 6486569