Antral Follicle Count versus Basal Follicle Stimulating Hormone as Predictors of Ovarian Response in Women Undergoing Superovulation with Long Protocol for Assisted Reproduction

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 2036-2042
Author(s):  
Karim Hassanin Abd El-Maeboud ◽  
Ahmed El-Sayed Hassan El-Bohoty ◽  
Mohamed Abd El-Alim
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Follicle Stimulating Hormone ◽  
Ovarian Response ◽  
Antral Follicle ◽  
Antral Follicle Count ◽  
Long Protocol ◽  
Stimulating Hormone

scholarly journals An Ovarian Reserve Assessment Model Based on Anti-Müllerian Hormone Levels, Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Levels, and Age: Retrospective Cohort Study

10.2196/19096 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. e19096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huiyu Xu ◽  
Li Shi ◽  
Guoshuang Feng ◽  
Zhen Xiao ◽  
Lixue Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Reserve ◽  
Hormone Level ◽  
Follicle Stimulating Hormone ◽  
Ovarian Response ◽  
Antral Follicle ◽  
Antral Follicle Count ◽  
Poor Ovarian Response ◽  
Predicted Probability ◽  
Age Model ◽  
Stimulating Hormone

Background Previously, we reported a model for assessing ovarian reserves using 4 predictors: anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level, antral follicle count (AFC), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level, and female age. This model is referred as the AAFA (anti-Müllerian hormone level–antral follicle count–follicle-stimulating hormone level–age) model. Objective This study aims to explore the possibility of establishing a model for predicting ovarian reserves using only 3 factors: AMH level, FSH level, and age. The proposed model is referred to as the AFA (anti-Müllerian hormone level–follicle-stimulating hormone level–age) model. Methods Oocytes from ovarian cycles stimulated by gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist were collected retrospectively at our reproductive center. Poor ovarian response (<5 oocytes retrieved) was defined as an outcome variable. The AFA model was built using a multivariable logistic regression analysis on data from 2017; data from 2018 were used to validate the performance of AFA model. Measurements of the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predicative value were used to evaluate the performance of the model. To rank the ovarian reserves of the whole population, we ranked the subgroups according to the predicted probability of poor ovarian response and further divided the 60 subgroups into 4 clusters, A-D, according to cut-off values consistent with the AAFA model. Results The AUCs of the AFA and AAFA models were similar for the same validation set, with values of 0.853 (95% CI 0.841-0.865) and 0.850 (95% CI 0.838-0.862), respectively. We further ranked the ovarian reserves according to their predicted probability of poor ovarian response, which was calculated using our AFA model. The actual incidences of poor ovarian response in groups from A-D in the AFA model were 0.037 (95% CI 0.029-0.046), 0.128 (95% CI 0.099-0.165), 0.294 (95% CI 0.250-0.341), and 0.624 (95% CI 0.577-0.669), respectively. The order of ovarian reserve from adequate to poor followed the order from A to D. The clinical pregnancy rate, live-birth rate, and specific differences in groups A-D were similar when predicted using the AFA and AAFA models. Conclusions This AFA model for assessing the true ovarian reserve was more convenient, cost-effective, and objective than our original AAFA model.

scholarly journals An Ovarian Reserve Assessment Model Based on Anti-Müllerian Hormone Levels, Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Levels, and Age: Retrospective Cohort Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huiyu Xu ◽  
Li Shi ◽  
Guoshuang Feng ◽  
Zhen Xiao ◽  
Lixue Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Reserve ◽  
Hormone Level ◽  
Follicle Stimulating Hormone ◽  
Ovarian Response ◽  
Antral Follicle ◽  
Antral Follicle Count ◽  
Poor Ovarian Response ◽  
Predicted Probability ◽  
Age Model ◽  
Stimulating Hormone

BACKGROUND Previously, we reported a model for assessing ovarian reserves using 4 predictors: anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level, antral follicle count (AFC), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level, and female age. This model is referred as the AAFA (anti-Müllerian hormone level–antral follicle count–follicle-stimulating hormone level–age) model. OBJECTIVE This study aims to explore the possibility of establishing a model for predicting ovarian reserves using only 3 factors: AMH level, FSH level, and age. The proposed model is referred to as the AFA (anti-Müllerian hormone level–follicle-stimulating hormone level–age) model. METHODS Oocytes from ovarian cycles stimulated by gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist were collected retrospectively at our reproductive center. Poor ovarian response (&lt;5 oocytes retrieved) was defined as an outcome variable. The AFA model was built using a multivariable logistic regression analysis on data from 2017; data from 2018 were used to validate the performance of AFA model. Measurements of the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predicative value were used to evaluate the performance of the model. To rank the ovarian reserves of the whole population, we ranked the subgroups according to the predicted probability of poor ovarian response and further divided the 60 subgroups into 4 clusters, A-D, according to cut-off values consistent with the AAFA model. RESULTS The AUCs of the AFA and AAFA models were similar for the same validation set, with values of 0.853 (95% CI 0.841-0.865) and 0.850 (95% CI 0.838-0.862), respectively. We further ranked the ovarian reserves according to their predicted probability of poor ovarian response, which was calculated using our AFA model. The actual incidences of poor ovarian response in groups from A-D in the AFA model were 0.037 (95% CI 0.029-0.046), 0.128 (95% CI 0.099-0.165), 0.294 (95% CI 0.250-0.341), and 0.624 (95% CI 0.577-0.669), respectively. The order of ovarian reserve from adequate to poor followed the order from A to D. The clinical pregnancy rate, live-birth rate, and specific differences in groups A-D were similar when predicted using the AFA and AAFA models. CONCLUSIONS This AFA model for assessing the true ovarian reserve was more convenient, cost-effective, and objective than our original AAFA model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document