The Predictive Potential of Ovarian Reserve Markers for Poor Responders in the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Outcomes

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 47 Sayı: 5, 751 - 758, 04.09.2025

Vehbi Yavuz Tokgöz , Elçin Telli , Ahmet Başar Tekin

https://doi.org/10.20515/otd.1724826

Öz

To evaluate the predictive power of baseline age, FSH, AMH, and AFC on total retrieved oocyte numbers and treatment outcomes in women with poor ovarian response (POR) according to the Bologna criteria. In this retrospective study, 181 IVF cycles meeting the Bologna POR criteria were analyzed at the Eskişehir Osmangazi University Reproductive Health Center between January 2017 and December 2024. Baseline parameters (age, FSH, AMH, AFC) were correlated with total and MII oocyte counts using correlation and logistic regression analyses. POR prediction (≤3 retrieved oocytes) was assessed by ROC analysis. Pregnancy outcomes (biochemical, clinical pregnancy, live birth) were recorded based on serum β-hCG measurements 12 days post-transfer and ultrasonographic findings. The mean age was 35.9 ± 4.6 years, basal FSH 9.9 ± 4.1 IU/L, AMH 0.88 ± 0.33 ng/mL, and AFC 5.5 ± 2.5. Mean total oocyte count was 2.54 ± 1.28 and MII oocyte count 1.50 ± 1.27. AFC showed a significant correlation with total oocyte count (r = 0.247, p < 0.001). AMH (AUC = 0.716, p = 0.003) and FSH (AUC = 0.687, p = 0.002) predicted POR cycles with ≤3 oocytes, demonstrating slightly lower AUC values compared to AFC. Clinical pregnancy rate was 28.9% and live birth rate was 18.1%. In women with POR, AFC was the strongest predictor of oocyte yield, while AMH and FSH showed comparable and higher performance in identifying very POR cycles. These findings underscore the importance of combined assessment of basal ovarian reserve markers for personalized IVF protocol planning

Anahtar Kelimeler

ovarian reserve , amh , afc , fsh , bologna , poor ovarian response , ivf

Yardımcı Üreme Tedavisi Sonuçlarında Zayıf Yanıt Veren Olgularda Over Rezerv Belirteçlerinin Öngörü Potansiyeli

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Bologna kriterlerine göre düşük over yanıtı tanısına uyan kadınlarda bazal yaş, FSH, AMH ve AFC değerlerinin toplanan oosit sayısı bağlantılı tedavi sonuçlarını öngörme gücünü değerlendirmektir. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Üreme Sağlığı Merkezi’ne Ocak 2017–Aralık 2024 tarihleri arasında başvuran, Bologna kriterlerine göre düşük over yanıt durumuna sahip 181 tüp bebek siklusu retrospektif olarak incelendi. Bazal parametreler (yaş, FSH, AMH, AFC) ile toplanan oosit sayıları arasındaki ilişki korelasyon ve lojistik regresyon analizleri ile; çok düşük over yanıtı (≤3 oosit) öngörüsü ROC analizi ile değerlendirildi. Gebelik sonuçları (biyokimyasal, klinik gebelik, canlı doğum) embriyo transferinden 12 gün sonraki β-hCG ve ultrasonografik bulgulara göre kaydedildi. Katılımcıların ortalama yaş 35.9±4.6 yıl, bazal FSH 9.9±4.1 IU/L, AMH 0.88±0.33 ng/mL, AFC 5.5±2.5 olarak tespit edildi. Ortalama toplam oosit sayısı 2.54±1.28, matür oosit sayısı 1.50±1.27 idi. AFC, toplam oosit sayısı ile anlamlı korelasyon (r=0.247, p<0.001) gösterirken; AMH (AUC=0.716, p=0.003) ve FSH (AUC=0.687, p=0.002) 3 ve altı oosit elde edilen döngüleri öngörmede AFC’ye göre daha yüksek öngörü potansiyeli sergiledi. Klinik gebelik oranı %28.9, canlı doğum oranı %18.1 olarak bulundu. Düşük over yanıtlı vakalarda AFC, toplam oosit sayısını öngörmede en güçlü belirteç iken; düşük yanıtlı döngülerin tanımlanmasında AMH ve FSH değerleri AFC’den daha iyi bir öngörü potansiyeli gösterdi. Bu veriler, IVF protokollerinin kişiselleştirilmesinde bazal over rezerv belirteçlerinin birlikte değerlendirilmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

over rezerv , düşük over yanıtı , tüp bebek , amh , amh , afc , afc , fsh , fsh , bologna , bologna

Kaynakça

• 1. La Marca A, Ferraretti AP, Palermo R, Ubaldi FM. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(1):1–5.
• 2. Biasoni V, Patriarca A, Dalmasso P, Bertagna A, Manieri C, Benedetto C, et al. Ovarian sensitivity index is strongly related to circulating AMH and may be used to predict ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins in IVF. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011 Aug 9;9:112.
• 3. Tsakos E, Tolikas A, Daniilidis A, Asimakopoulos B. Predictive value of anti-müllerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and antral follicle count on the outcome of ovarian stimulation in women following GnRH-antagonist protocol for IVF/ET. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Dec;290(6):1249–53.
• 4. Holte J, Brodin T, Berglund L, Hadziosmanovic N, Olovsson M, Bergh T. Antral follicle counts are strongly associated with live-birth rates after assisted reproduction, with superior treatment outcome in women with polycystic ovaries. Fertil Steril. 2011 Sep;96(3):594–9.
• 5. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of “poor response” to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1616–24.
• 6. Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, et al. Circulating basal anti-Müllerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009 Nov;92(5):1586–93.
• 7. te Velde ER, Pearson PL. The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(2):141–54.
• 8. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):370–85.
• 9. Broer SL, Mol BWJ, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJM. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009 Mar;91(3):705–14.
• 10. Salemi F, Jambarsang S, Kheirkhah A, Salehi-Abargouei A, Ahmadnia Z, Hosseini HA, et al. The best ovarian reserve marker to predict ovarian response following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2024 Dec 18;13(1):303.
• 11. Liu Y, Pan Z, Wu Y, Song J, Chen J. Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ovarian Res. 2023 Jun 27;16(1):117.
• 12. Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, Yildiz S, Mutlu I, Arisoy O, 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 Jun;30(5):657–65.
• 13. Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 May;14(5):602–10.
• 14. Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, Broekmans FJM. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):46–54.
• 15. Tal R, Seifer DB. Ovarian reserve testing: a user’s guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;217(2):129–40.
• 16. Galey-Fontaine J, Cédrin-Durnerin I, Chaïbi R, Massin N, Hugues JN. Age and ovarian reserve are distinct predictive factors of cycle outcome in low responders. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Jan;10(1):94–9.
• 17. Anckaert E, Denk B, He Y, Torrance HL, Broekmans F, Hund M. Evaluation of the Elecsys® anti-Müllerian hormone assay for the prediction of hyper-response to controlled ovarian stimulation with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 May;236:133–8.
• 18. Sadruddin S, Barnett B, Ku L, Havemann D, Mucowski S, Herrington R, et al. Maternal serum concentration of anti-Müllerian hormone is a better predictor than basal follicle stimulating hormone of successful blastocysts development during IVF treatment. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239779.
• 19. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(1):124–40.
• 20. 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):393–8.
• 21. 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 Apr;103(4):923-930.e1.
• 22. Fleming R, Seifer DB, Frattarelli JL, Ruman J. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count versus anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Oct;31(4):486–96.
• 23. La Marca A, Grisendi V, Griesinger G. How Much Does AMH Really Vary in Normal Women? Int J Endocrinol. 2013;2013:959487.
• 24. 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.
• 25. Subirá J, Alberola-Rubio J, Núñez MJ, Escrivá AM, Pellicer A, Montañana V, et al. Inter-cycle and inter-observer variability of the antral follicle count in routine clinical practice. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017 Jul;33(7):515–8.
• 26. Li R, Gong F, Zhu Y, Fang W, Yang J, Liu J, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone for prediction of ovarian response in Chinese infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Oct;33(4):506–12.
• 27. Arce JC, La Marca A, Mirner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2013 May;99(6):1644–53.
• 28. Himabindu Y, Sriharibabu M, Gopinathan K, Satish U, Louis TF, Gopinath P. Anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproduction. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013 Jan;6(1):27–31.
• 29. Vembu R, Reddy NS. Serum AMH Level to Predict the Hyper Response in Women with PCOS and Non-PCOS Undergoing Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in ART. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017;10(2):91–4.
• 30. McIlveen M, Skull JD, Ledger WL. Evaluation of the utility of multiple endocrine and ultrasound measures of ovarian reserve in the prediction of cycle cancellation in a high-risk IVF population. Hum Reprod. 2007 Mar;22(3):778–85.
• 31. Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Batcha M, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Campbell B, 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 Oct;94(5):1775–81.
• 32. Al-Azemi M, Killick SR, Duffy S, Pye C, Refaat B, Hill N, et al. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Hum Reprod. 2011 Feb;26(2):414–22.
• 33. Honnma H, Baba T, Sasaki M, Hashiba Y, Oguri H, Fukunaga T, et al. Different ovarian response by age in an anti-Müllerian hormone-matched group undergoing in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 Feb;29(2):117–25. 34. Keane K, Cruzat VF, Wagle S, Chaudhary N, Newsholme P, Yovich J. Specific ranges of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count correlate to provide a prognostic indicator for IVF outcome. Reprod Biol. 2017 Mar;17(1):51–9.
• 35. Kailasam C, Keay SD, Wilson P, Ford WCL, Jenkins JM. Defining poor ovarian response during IVF cycles, in women aged <40 years, and its relationship with treatment outcome. Hum Reprod. 2004 Jul;19(7):1544–7.
• 36. Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2000 Apr;73(4):667–76.
• 37. Gleicher N, Vega M V, Darmon SK, Weghofer A, Wu YG, Wang Q, et al. Live-birth rates in very poor prognosis patients, who are defined as poor responders under the Bologna criteria, with nonelective single embryo, two-embryo, and three or more embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2015 Dec;104(6):1435–41.