Value of the Ultrasound in the Study of Ovarian Reserve for Prediction of Oocyte Recovery

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose To identify which methods used in the assessment of the ovarian reserve are exclusive or complementary to identify the best response to follicle development.

Methods Retrospective cohort study, involving patients undergoing assisted reproduction treatment at the Instituto de Medicina Reprodutiva e Fetal, from April 2009 to July 2014. Age, biochemical tests, and ultrasound were assessed. The data were analyzed to predict the follicular development and the relation between them, using, for statistical analysis, Statistical Package for Social Sciences software.

Results Out of the 293 couples included, 50.2% presented infertility by ovarian factor. Considering the age as the main variable, a significant negative correlation with the volume of both ovaries was observed (right ovary, r = 0.21; left ovary, r = −0.22; both p < 0.0001), and with the antral follicle count (right ovary, r = −0.38; left ovary, r = −0.47; both p < 0.0001). Considering the antral follicle count as the main variable, a significant positive correlation with the total recruited oocytes was observed. When we correlated the antral follicle count with the recruited follicles larger than 18 mm, we observed that, with a cutoff of 12 antral follicles, there is a positive predictive value of 99%, and an area under the ROC curve of 0.76.

Conclusion We concluded from our study that age and antral follicle count are effective predictors of ovarian response in cycles of assisted reproduction. The ovarian volume, as well as the anti-Müllerian hormone dosage, seem to be adequate markers of the ovarian reserve.

Resumo

Objetivo Identificar quais métodos utilizados na avaliação da reserva ovariana são excludentes ou complementares na identificação da melhor resposta ao desenvolvimento folicular.

Métodos Estudo retrospectivo de coorte, que envolveu pacientes em tratamento de reprodução assistida no Instituto de Medicina Reprodutiva de abril de 2009 a julho de 2014. Foram avaliadas idade, exames bioquímicos e ecografia. Os dados foram analisados na predição do desenvolvimento folicular e nas suas relações entre si, utilizando para análise estatística o programa Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

Resultados Dos 293 casais incluídos, 50,2% apresentavam infertilidade por fator ovariano. Considerando a idade como principal variável, foi observada uma correlação significativa e negativa com volume de ambos ovários (ovário direito, r = 0,21; ovário esquerdo, r = −0,22; ambos p < 0,0001), e com contagem de folículos antrais (ovário direito, r = −0,38; ovário esquerdo, r = −0,47; ambos p < 0,0001). Considerando a contagem de folículos antrais como a variável principal, foi observada uma correlação significativa e positiva com o total de oócitos recrutados. Quando correlacionamos a contagem de folículos antrais com os folículos recrutados maiores do que 18 mm, observamos que, com um ponto de corte de 12 folículos antrais, tem-se um valor preditivo positivo de 99%, e uma área da curva ROC de 0,76.

Conclusões Concluímos com nosso trabalho que a idade e a contagem de folículos antrais são eficientes preditores da resposta ovariana em ciclos de reprodução assistida. O volume ovariano, assim como a dosagem do hormônio anti-mulleriano, parecem ser marcadores adequados de reserva ovariana.

• References

• 1 Vural B, Cakiroglu Y, Vural F, Filiz S. Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 289 (6) 1355-1361
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Galliano D, Bellver J, Díaz-García C, Simón C, Pellicer A. ART and uterine pathology: how relevant is the maternal side for implantation?. Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21 (1) 13-38
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Castro EC, Borges ALF, Rezende KN, Amaral WN. Antral follicle count in predicting appropriate dose of gonadotropin in in vitro fertilization cycles. Reprod Clim. 2014; 29 (3) 136-142
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Beltadze K, Barbakadze L. Ovarian reserve in women of late reproductive age by the method of treatment of PCOS. Iran J Reprod Med 2015; 13 (5) 263-268
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bentzen JG, Forman JL, Larsen EC , et al. Maternal menopause as a predictor of anti-Mullerian hormone level and antral follicle count in daughters during reproductive age. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (1) 247-255
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA , et al; 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Silveira CF, Coutinho LMA, Amaral WN, Castro EC. A contagem dos folículos antrais na predição de resultados em ciclos de fertilização in vitro: uma revisão sistemática. Reprod Clim. 2013; 28 (2) 68-73
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Aboulghar M, Saber W, Amin Y, Aboulghar MM, Serour G, Mansour R. Impact of antimüllerian hormone assays on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization: a prospective controlled study. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (1) 134-137
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Silva ALB, Vilodre LCF. Avaliação da reserva ovariana: métodos atuais. Femina 2009; 37 (3) 149-154
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Oliani AH, Vaz-Oliani DCM. Monitorização ultrassonográfica da indução da ovulação. In: Pastore AR, Cerri GG, , editores. Ultrassonografia em ginecologia e obstetrícia. 2a ed. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2010. . p. 950-9
  Google Scholar
• 11 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Hsu A, Arny M, Knee AB , et al. Antral follicle count in clinical practice: analyzing clinical relevance. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (2) 474-479
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 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 (2) 482-489
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 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) 274-278
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A , et al. 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) 657-665
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Batcha M , et al. The cohort of antral follicles measuring 2-6  mm reflects the quantitative status of ovarian reserve as assessed by serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (5) 1775-1781
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Luna M, Grunfeld L, Mukherjee T, Sandler B, Copperman AB. Moderately elevated levels of basal follicle-stimulating hormone in young patients predict low ovarian response, but should not be used to disqualify patients from attempting in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2007; 87 (4) 782-787
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Salmassi A, Mettler L, Hedderich J , et al. Cut-off levels of anti-mullerian hormone for the prediction of ovarian response, in vitro fertilization outcome and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Int J Fertil Steril 2015; 9 (2) 157-167
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 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 multicenter trials. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (4) 923-930 .e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Broer SL, Broekmans FJ, Laven JS, Fauser BC. Anti-Müllerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20 (5) 688-701
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Barbakadze L, Kristesashvili J, Khonelidze N, Tsagareishvili G. The correlations of anti-mullerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and antral follicle count in different age groups of infertile women. Int J Fertil Steril 2015; 8 (4) 393-398
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Coelho Neto MA, Martins WP, Lima ML , et al. Ovarian response is a better predictor of clinical pregnancy rate following embryo transfer than is thin endometrium or presence of an endometrioma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46 (4) 501-505
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Lan VT, Linh NK, Tuong HM, Wong PC, Howles CM. Anti-Müllerian hormone versus antral follicle count for defining the starting dose of FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27 (4) 390-399
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Souza E, Yoshida A, Peres H, Andrade LdeA, Sarian LO, Derchain S. [Preservation of the fertility and the ovaries in women with benign adnexal tumors]. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2015; 37 (1) 36-41 Portuguese.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Choi B, Bosch E, Lannon BM , et al. Personalized prediction of first-cycle in vitro fertilization success. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (7) 1905-1911
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Surekha T, Himabindu Y, Sriharibabu M. Impact of socio-economic status on ovarian reserve markers. J Hum Reprod Sci 2013; 6 (3) 201-204
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Chuang CC, Chen CD, Chao KH, Chen SU, Ho HN, Yang YS. Age is a better predictor of pregnancy potential than basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003; 79 (1) 63-68
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Magalhães ACF. Contributo para a definição do interesse da medição do valor sérico da hormona anti-mulleriana, em procriação medicamente assistida [dissertação]. Covilhã: Universidade da Beira Interior; 2012
  Google Scholar
• 29 Abdalla H, Thum MY. An elevated basal FSH reflects a quantitative rather than qualitative decline of the ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (4) 893-898
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Müllerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2-6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet 2009; 26 (6) 319-325
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (3) 705-714
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Martins WP, Kollmann M, Raine-Fenning N. Counting ovarian follicles: updated threshold for diagnosis of hyperandrogenic anovulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44 (2) 131-134
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Nastri CO, Teixeira DM, Moroni RM, Leitão VM, Martins WP. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45 (4) 377-393
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Göksedef BP, Idiş N, Görgen H, Asma YR, Api M, Cetin A. The correlation of the antral follicle count and Serum anti-mullerian hormone. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2010; 11 (4) 212-215
  PubMedGoogle Scholar