An Online Tool Using Basal or Activated Ovarian Reserve Markers to Predict the Number of Oocytes Retrieved Following Controlled Ovarian Stimulation: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)

Specialty Endocrinology

Date 2022 Jun 13

PMID 35692402

Authors

Yong Han

Huiyu Xu

Guoshuang Feng

Kannan Alpadi

Lixue Chen

Haiyan Wang

Rong Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Predicting the number of oocytes retrieved (NOR) following controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is the only way to ensure effective and safe treatment in assisted reproductive technology (ART). To date, there have been limited studies about predicting specific NOR, which hinders the development of individualized treatment in ART.

Objective: To establish an online tool for predicting NOR.

Materials And Methods: In total, 621 prospective routine gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist COS cycles were studied. Independent variables included age, body mass index, antral follicle counts, basal FSH, basal and increment of anti-mullerian hormone, Luteinizing hormon, estradiol, testosterone, androstenedione, and inhibin B. The outcome variable was NOR. The independent variables underwent appropriate transformation to achieve a better fit for a linear relationship with NOR. Pruned forward selection with holdback validation was then used to establish predictive models. Corrected Akaike's information criterion, Schwarz-Bayesian information criterion, scaled -[likelihood], and the generalized coefficient of determination () were used for model evaluation.

Results: A multiple negative binomial regression model was used for predicting NOR because it fitted a negative binomial distribution. We established Model 1, using basal ovarian reserve markers, and Model 2, using both basal and early dynamic markers for predicting NOR following COS. The generalized values were 0.54 and 0.51 for Model 1 and 0.64 and 0.62 for Model 2 in the training and validation sets, respectively.

Conclusion: Models 1 and 2 could be applied to different scenarios. For directing the starting dose of recombinant follicle stimulation hormone (rFSH), Model 1 using basic predictors could be used prior to COS. Model 2 could be used for directing the adjustment of rFSH dosages during COS. An online tool (http://121.43.113.123:8002/) based on these two models is also developed. We anticipate that the clinical application of this tool could help the ART clinics to reduce iatrogenic ovarian under- or over-responses, and could reduce costs during COS for ART.

Citing Articles

AMHconverter: an online tool for converting results between the different anti-Müllerian hormone assays of Roche Elecsys, Beckman Access, and Kangrun.

Xu H, Feng G, Ma C, Han Y, Zhou J, Song J PeerJ. 2023; 11:e15301.

PMID: 37304879 PMC: 10249628. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15301.

POvaStim: An online tool for directing individualized FSH doses in ovarian stimulation.

Xu H, Feng G, Han Y, La Marca A, Li R, Qiao J Innovation (Camb). 2023; 4(2):100401.

PMID: 36926531 PMC: 10011821. DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2023.100401.

References

Broer S, van Disseldorp J, Broeze K, Dolleman M, Opmeer B, Bossuyt P . 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. 2012; 19(1):26-36. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dms041. View

Findlay J, Hutt K, Hickey M, Anderson R . What is the "ovarian reserve"?. Fertil Steril. 2014; 103(3):628-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.037. View

Mol B, Bossuyt P, Sunkara S, Garcia Velasco J, Venetis C, Sakkas D . Personalized ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology: study design considerations to move from hype to added value for patients. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109(6):968-979. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.037. View

Penarrubia J, Peralta S, Fabregues F, Carmona F, Casamitjana R, Balasch J . Day-5 inhibin B serum concentrations and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response and live birth in assisted reproduction cycles stimulated with gonadotropin after pituitary suppression. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(7):2590-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.009. View

Dewailly D, Andersen C, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R . The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20(3):370-85. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt062. View

Ubaldi F, Vaiarelli A, DAnna R, Rienzi L . Management of poor responders in IVF: is there anything new?. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:352098. PMC: 4127291. DOI: 10.1155/2014/352098. View

Haahr T, Esteves S, Humaidan P . Individualized controlled ovarian stimulation in expected poor-responders: an update. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018; 16(1):20. PMC: 5845159. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-018-0342-1. View

. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(3):e9-e17. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.093. View

Alviggi C, Andersen C, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves S . A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016; 105(6):1452-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005. View

10.

Xu H, Zhang M, Zhang H, Alpadi K, Wang L, Li R . Clinical Applications of Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone Measurements in Both Males and Females: An Update. Innovation (Camb). 2021; 2(1):100091. PMC: 8454570. DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100091. View

11.

Broekmans F, Soules M, Fauser B . Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev. 2009; 30(5):465-93. DOI: 10.1210/er.2009-0006. View

12.

Steward R, Lan L, Shah A, Yeh J, Price T, Goldfarb J . Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101(4):967-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.026. View

13.

Xu H, Zeng L, Yang R, Feng Y, Li R, Qiao J . Retrospective cohort study: AMH is the best ovarian reserve markers in predicting ovarian response but has unfavorable value in predicting clinical pregnancy in GnRH antagonist protocol. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016; 295(3):763-770. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-016-4274-8. View

14.

Lin D, Wei L, Ying Z . Model-checking techniques based on cumulative residuals. Biometrics. 2002; 58(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00001.x. View

15.

Decanter C, Pigny P, Lefebvre C, Thomas P, Leroy M, Dewailly D . Serum inhibin B during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: an additional criterion for deciding whether to proceed with egg retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(6):2419-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.037. View

16.

Ozturk Inal Z, Ustun Y, Yilmaz N, Aktulay A, Bardakci Y, Gulerman C . Does the anti-Müllerian hormone truly reflect ovarian response in women with endometrioma?. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 39(4):516-521. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1533542. View

17.

Sunkara S, La Marca A, Seed P, Khalaf Y . Increased risk of preterm birth and low birthweight with very high number of oocytes following IVF: an analysis of 65 868 singleton live birth outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(6):1473-80. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev076. View

18.

Tan R, Pu D, Liu L, Liu J, Wu J . Comparisons of inhibin B versus antimüllerian hormone in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96(4):905-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.1102. View

19.

Li H, Wong B, Ip W, Yeung W, Ho P, Ng E . Comparative evaluation of three new commercial immunoassays for anti-Müllerian hormone measurement. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(12):2796-2802. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew248. View

20.

Andersen C, Schmidt K, Kristensen S, Rosendahl M, Grete Byskov A, Ernst E . Concentrations of AMH and inhibin-B in relation to follicular diameter in normal human small antral follicles. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(5):1282-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq019. View