A New Ovarian Response Prediction Index (ORPI): Implications for Individualised Controlled Ovarian Stimulation

Overview

Journal Reprod Biol Endocrinol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Endocrinology
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2012 Nov 23

PMID 23171004

Citations 16

Authors

Joao Batista A Oliveira

Ricardo L R Baruffi

Claudia G Petersen

Ana L Mauri

Adriana M Nascimento

Laura Vagnini

Juliana Ricci

Mario Cavagna

Jose G Franco Jr

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The objective was to present a new ovarian response prediction index (ORPI), which was based on anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels, antral follicle count (AFC) and age, and to verify whether it could be a reliable predictor of the ovarian stimulation response.

Methods: A total of 101 patients enrolled in the ICSI programme were included. The ORPI values were calculated by multiplying the AMH level (ng/ml) by the number of antral follicles (2-9 mm), and the result was divided by the age (years) of the patient (ORPI=(AMH x AFC)/Patient age).

Results: The regression analysis demonstrated significant (P<0.0001) positive correlations between the ORPI and the total number of oocytes and of MII oocytes collected. The logistic regression revealed that the ORPI values were significantly associated with the likelihood of pregnancy (odds ratio (OR): 1.86; P=0.006) and collecting greater than or equal to 4 oocytes (OR: 49.25; P<0.0001), greater than or equal to 4 MII oocytes (OR: 6.26; P<0.0001) and greater than or equal to 15 oocytes (OR: 6.10; P<0.0001). Regarding the probability of collecting greater than or equal to 4 oocytes according to the ORPI value, the ROC curve showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 and an efficacy of 88% at a cut-off of 0.2. In relation to the probability of collecting greater than or equal to 4 MII oocytes according to the ORPI value, the ROC curve had an AUC of 0.84 and an efficacy of 81% at a cut-off of 0.3. The ROC curve for the probability of collecting greater than or equal to 15 oocytes resulted in an AUC of 0.89 and an efficacy of 82% at a cut-off of 0.9. Finally, regarding the probability of pregnancy occurrence according to the ORPI value, the ROC curve showed an AUC of 0.74 and an efficacy of 62% at a cut-off of 0.3.

Conclusions: The ORPI exhibited an excellent ability to predict a low ovarian response and a good ability to predict a collection of greater than or equal to 4 MII oocytes, an excessive ovarian response and the occurrence of pregnancy in infertile women. The ORPI might be used to improve the cost-benefit ratio of ovarian stimulation regimens by guiding the selection of medications and by modulating the doses and regimens according to the actual needs of the patients.

Citing Articles

Predicting the ovarian response: towards a determinant model and implications for practice.

Arvis P, Rongieres C, Pirrello O, Lehert P J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023; 41(1):213-222.

PMID: 37921971 PMC: 10789711. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-02975-w.

Effect of intrauterine infusion of autologous platelet-rich plasma in patients with refractory thin endometrium undergoing in vitro fertilization.

Salman M, Zaki A, El-Gamal H, Gomaa M, Osman A, Farid L Prz Menopauzalny. 2023; 22(2):77-82.

PMID: 37674922 PMC: 10477767. DOI: 10.5114/pm.2023.128814.

Predicting the number of oocytes retrieved from controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with machine learning.

Ferrand T, Boulant J, He C, Chambost J, Jacques C, Pena C Hum Reprod. 2023; 38(10):1918-1926.

PMID: 37581894 PMC: 10546073. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead163.

The Ala307Thr polymorphism of the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) gene is associated with the dose of recombinant FSH received during IVF/ICSI treatment.

Dieamant F, Petersen C, Vagnini L, Petersen B, Ricci J, Nicoletti A JBRA Assist Reprod. 2023; 27(1):78-84.

PMID: 36995260 PMC: 10065770. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20230009.

The Predictive Levels of Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone and the Combined Index of the Number of Retrieved Oocytes and Good-Quality Embryos in Advanced-Age Infertile Women.

Sun T, Chen X, Shi C, Tian L, Zhou S Int J Endocrinol. 2022; 2022:4224417.

PMID: 35479662 PMC: 9038402. DOI: 10.1155/2022/4224417.

References

Cota A, Oliveira J, Petersen C, Mauri A, Massaro F, Silva L . GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction cycles: oocyte morphology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012; 10:33. PMC: 3464873. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-10-33. View

Younis J, Jadaon J, Izhaki I, Haddad S, Radin O, Bar-Ami S . A simple multivariate score could predict ovarian reserve, as well as pregnancy rate, in infertile women. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(2):655-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.036. View

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):319-25. PMC: 2729857. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-009-9319-5. View

Lavorato H, Oliveira J, Petersen C, Vagnini L, Mauri A, Cavagna M . GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in IVF/ICSI cycles with recombinant LH supplementation: DNA fragmentation and apoptosis in granulosa cells. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 165(1):61-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.014. View

Broekmans F, de Ziegler D, Howles C, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F . The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(3):1044-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.040. View

Broekmans F, Kwee J, Hendriks D, Mol B, Lambalk C . A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006; 12(6):685-718. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dml034. View

Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N . A prospective, comparative analysis of anti-Müllerian hormone, inhibin-B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2008; 93(3):855-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.042. View

Yates A, Rustamov O, Roberts S, Lim H, Pemberton P, Smith A . Anti-Mullerian hormone-tailored stimulation protocols improve outcomes whilst reducing adverse effects and costs of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(9):2353-62. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der182. View

Franco Jr J, Baruffi R, Oliveira J, Mauri A, Petersen C, Contart P . Effects of recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during induced ovarian stimulation in the GnRH-agonist protocol: a matched case-control study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009; 7:58. PMC: 2701434. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-58. View

10.

La Marca A, Broekmans F, Volpe A, Fauser B, Macklon N . Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know?. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24(9):2264-75. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep210. View

11.

Queenan Jr J . An appreciation of modern ART. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 43(4):942-57. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-200012000-00023. View

12.

Nelson S, Yates R, Fleming R . Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles--implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22(9):2414-21. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem204. View

13.

Lekamge D, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist R, Tremellen K . Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14(5):602-10. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61053-x. View

14.

Nelson S, Anderson R, Broekmans F, Raine-Fenning N, Fleming R, La Marca A . Anti-Müllerian hormone: clairvoyance or crystal clear?. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(3):631-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der446. View

15.

Maheshwari A, Fowler P, Bhattacharya S . Assessment of ovarian reserve--should we perform tests of ovarian reserve routinely?. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(11):2729-35. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del188. View

16.

Nelson S, La Marca A . The journey from the old to the new AMH assay: how to avoid getting lost in the values. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23(4):411-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.011. View

17.

Riggs R, Duran E, Baker M, Kimble T, Hobeika E, Yin L . Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Müllerian hormone: a comparison of the predictive value of anti-Müllerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, and age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(2):202.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.05.004. View

18.

Liu Y, Lee K, Ng E, Yeung W, Ho P . Gene expression profiling of human peri-implantation endometria between natural and stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008; 90(6):2152-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.020. View

19.

Ferraretti A, La Marca A, Fauser B, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L . ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(7):1616-24. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der092. View

20.

Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G . Basal level of anti-Müllerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(8):2022-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del127. View