TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing ovarian response
T2 - antral follicle count versus anti-Müllerian hormone
AU - Fleming, Richard
AU - Seifer, David B.
AU - Frattarelli, John L.
AU - Ruman, Jane
N1 - Funding Information:
Medical writing and editorial assistance for the development of this manuscript were provided by Kimberly Brooks, PhD, of SciFluent, based upon the authors' direction, and was financially supported by Ferring Pharmaceuticals , Inc.
PY - 2015/10
Y1 - 2015/10
N2 - Oocyte number and quality decline with age; however, fertility varies significantly even among women of the same age. Various measures have been developed to predict response to ovarian stimulation and reproductive potential. Evaluation of ovarian reserve can identify patients who may experience poor response or hyper-response to exogenous gonadotrophins and can aid in the personalization of treatment to achieve good response and minimize risks. In recent years, two key methods, antral follicle count (AFC), an ultrasound biomarker of follicle number, and the concentration of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), a hormone biomarker of follicle number, have emerged as preferred methods for assessing ovarian reserve. In this review, a live debate held at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2013 Annual Meeting is expanded upon to compare the predictive values, merits, and disadvantages of AFC and AMH level. An ovarian reserve measure without limitations has not yet been discovered, although both AFC and AMH have good predictive value. Published evidence, however, as well as the objectivity and potential standardization of AMH level and the convenience of testing any time throughout the menstrual cycle, leans towards AMH level becoming the gold-standard biomarker to evaluate ovarian reserve and predict ovarian response to stimulation.
AB - Oocyte number and quality decline with age; however, fertility varies significantly even among women of the same age. Various measures have been developed to predict response to ovarian stimulation and reproductive potential. Evaluation of ovarian reserve can identify patients who may experience poor response or hyper-response to exogenous gonadotrophins and can aid in the personalization of treatment to achieve good response and minimize risks. In recent years, two key methods, antral follicle count (AFC), an ultrasound biomarker of follicle number, and the concentration of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), a hormone biomarker of follicle number, have emerged as preferred methods for assessing ovarian reserve. In this review, a live debate held at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2013 Annual Meeting is expanded upon to compare the predictive values, merits, and disadvantages of AFC and AMH level. An ovarian reserve measure without limitations has not yet been discovered, although both AFC and AMH have good predictive value. Published evidence, however, as well as the objectivity and potential standardization of AMH level and the convenience of testing any time throughout the menstrual cycle, leans towards AMH level becoming the gold-standard biomarker to evaluate ovarian reserve and predict ovarian response to stimulation.
KW - anti-Müllerian hormone
KW - antral follicle count
KW - hyper-response
KW - in-vitro fertilization
KW - ovarian reserve
KW - poor response
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943582082&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943582082&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.06.015
DO - 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.06.015
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26283017
AN - SCOPUS:84943582082
SN - 1472-6483
VL - 31
SP - 486
EP - 496
JO - Reproductive BioMedicine Online
JF - Reproductive BioMedicine Online
IS - 4
M1 - 1391
ER -