Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Success rates of any artificial reproduction techniques depend on a correct protocol for ovarian stimulation. This can be decided only by proper assessment of ovarian reserve before commencing ovarian stimulation. This study has been conducted to investigate the role of hormonal and functional biomarkers in the prediction of ovarian response.

Methods

A total of 689 women between July 2012 and July 2013 undergoing IVF at Kocaeli University have been enrolled in the study. Patients have been categorized into three groups according to the number of oocytes retrieved: 0–3 oocytes (poor responders), 4–15 oocytes (normoresponders), and >16 oocytes (hyperresponders). Groups have been compared according to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), E2, luteinizing hormone (LH) levels, antral follicle counts, and E2 levels on hCG days. Furthermore, regression analysis has been performed with parameters such as age, FSH, LH, E2, anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle counts (AFC) that can affect the total number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates and their interactions with each other have been investigated.

Results

FSH, age, hCG day LH level, cycle cancellation rate, total gonadotropin dose were significantly higher in the poor responder group, but in this group, AFC, AMH, hCG day E2 level, and the number of MII oocytes were significantly lower. Cut-off values of normal responders for FSH, AMH, and AFC were 8.43 area under curve [AUC: 0.541 (0.491–0.590)], 0.62 [AUC: 0.704 (0.638–0.764)], and 6 [AUC: 0.715 (0.667–0.760)], respectively. Cut-off values for the absolute poor response group (cycle cancellation) were 12.75 for FSH [AUC: 0.533 (0.49–0.57)], 0.23 for AMH [AUC: 0.678 (0.618–0.733)], and 6 for AFC [AUC: 0.576 (0.531–0.613)]. AMH and AFC were the best markers for the prediction of total oocyte count, independent of age, FSH, and LH levels.

Conclusions

AMH and AFC were found to be the best ovarian reserve tests that can determine the total oocyte count retrieved, without any significant effects on pregnancy rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB (2006) A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 12(6):685–718

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sills ES, Alper MM, Walsh AP (2009) Ovarian reserve screening in infertility: practical applications and theoretical directions for research. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 146(1):30–36. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yang YS, Hur MH, Kim SY, Young K (2011) Correlation between sonographic and endocrine markers of ovarian aging as predictors for late menopausal transition. Menopause 18(2):138–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Majumder K, Gelbaya TA, Laing I, Nardo LG (2010) The use of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count to predict the potential of oocytes and embryos. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150(2):166–170. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalaiselvi VS, P S, K P, Krishna GP (2012) The anti mullerian hormone—a novel marker for assessing the ovarian reserve in women with regular menstrual cycles. J Clin Diagn Res 6(10):1636–1639

  6. Panchal S, Nagori C (2012) Comparison of anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count for assessment of ovarian reserve. J Hum Reprod Sci 5(3):274–278

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sahmay S, Cetin M, Ocal P, Kaleli S, Senol H, Birol F, Irez T (2011) Serum anti-Müllerian hormone level as a predictor of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization patients. Reprod Med Biol 10:9–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Himabindu Y, Sriharibabu M, Gopinathan K, Satish U, Louis TF, Gopinath P (2013) Anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproduction. J Hum Reprod Sci 6(1):27–31. doi:10.4103/0974-1208.112377

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, Mitchell P, Ambrose P, Fleming R (2009) Anti-Müllerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod 24(4):867–875. doi:10.1093/humrep/den480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fiçicioglu C, Kutlu T, Baglam E, Bakacak Z (2006) Early follicular antimüllerian hormone as an indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 85(3):592–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Ezcurra D (2012) Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 10(9):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  12. Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ (2009) The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 91:705–714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Celik H, Bıldırcın D, Güven D, Cetinkaya MB, Alper T, Batuoğlu AS (2012) Random anti-Müllerian hormone predicts ovarian response in women with high baseline follicle-stimulating hormone levels: anti-Müllerian hormone in poor responders in assisted reproductive treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet 29(8):797–802. doi:10.1007/s10815-012-9794-y (Epub 2012 May 10)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. La Marca A (2013) Whatever its variability, antimüllerian hormone remains the most stable hormonal predictor. Fertil Steril 100(1):e1. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gnoth C, Schuring AN, Friol K, Tigges J, Mallmann P, Godehardt E (2008) Relevance of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in a routine IVF program. Hum Reprod 23:1359–1365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G (2006) Basal level of anti-Müllerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 21(8):2022–2026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, Sathanandan M (2004) Inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients? BJOG 111(11):1248–1253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, Laing I (2009) Circulating basal anti- Müllerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 92(5):1586–1593. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nakhuda GS, Sauer MV, Wang JG, Ferin M, Lobo RA (2007) Müllerian inhibiting substance is an accurate marker of ovarian response in women of advanced reproductive age undergoing IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 14(4):450–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, Volpe A (2007) Anti-Müllerian hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod 22(3):766–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ben-Haroush A, Farhi J, Zahalka Y, Sapir O, Meizner I, Fisch B (2012) Correlations between antral follicle count and ultrasonographic ovarian parameters and clinical variables and outcomes in IVF cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol 28(6):432–435

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Melo MA, Garrido N, Alvarez C, Bellver J, Meseguer M, Pellicer A, Remohí J (2009) Antral follicle count (AFC) can be used in the prediction of ovarian response but cannot predict the oocyte/embryo quality or the in vitro fertilization outcome in an egg donation program. Fertil Steril 91(1):148–156. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT, Segars JH (2003) A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 80(2):350–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Disseldorp J, Lambalk CB, Kwee J, Looman CW, Eijkemans MJ, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ (2010) Comparison of inter- and intra-cycle variability of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle counts. Hum Reprod 25(1):221–227. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Panchal S, Nagori C (2012) Comparison of anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count for assessment of ovarian reserve. J Hum Reprod Sci 5(3):274–278. doi:10.4103/0974-1208.106340

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nahum R, Shifren JL, Chang Y, Leykin L, Isaacson K, Toth TL (2001) Antral follicle assessment as a tool for predicting outcome in IVF—is it a better predictor than age and FSH? J Assist Reprod Genet 18(3):151–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kunt C, Ozaksit G, Keskin Kurt R, Cakir Gungor AN, Kanat-Pektas M, Kilic S, Dede A (2011) Anti-Mullerian hormone is a better marker than inhibin B, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol or antral follicle count in predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(6):1415–1421. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-1889-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assisted Reproductive Tecniques Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kocaeli University Medical Faculty, Umuttepe/Uctepeler, 41000, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Birol Vural & Yigit Cakiroglu

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haydarpasa Numune Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Fisun Vural

  3. Assisted Reproductive Techniques Unit, Department of Histology and Embryology, Kocaeli University Medical Faculty, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Serdar Filiz

Authors
  1. Birol Vural
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yigit Cakiroglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fisun Vural
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Serdar Filiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yigit Cakiroglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vural, B., Cakiroglu, Y., Vural, F. et al. Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289, 1355–1361 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3132-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3132-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation