Definition by FSH, AMH and embryo numbers of good-, intermediate- and poor-prognosis patients suggests previously unknown IVF outcome-determining factor associated with AMH

Journal of Translational Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Gleicher, Norbert ^a,b,c   Kushnir, Vitaly A ^a,d   Sen, Aritro ^a,e   Darmon, Sarah K ^a   Weghofer, Andrea ^a,f   Wu, Yan Guang ^a   Wang, Qi ^a   Zhang, Lin ^a   Albertini, David F ^a,g   Barad, David H ^a,b,h  

^a CENTER FOR HUMAN REPRODUCTION   (United States)

^b Foundation for Reproductive Medicine   (United States)

^c ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

^f MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^g UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anti M llerian hormone (AMH); Embryo number; Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH); In vitro fertilization (IVF); Live birth rates; Prediction models; Prognosis

Indexed keywords

FOLLITROPIN; MUELLERIAN INHIBITING FACTOR;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; EMBRYO PRODUCTION; EMBRYO QUALITY; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT PARAMETERS; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FUNCTIONAL OVARIAN RESERVE; HUMAN; LIVE BIRTH; MIDDLE AGED; OBSTETRIC PROCEDURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY; PROGNOSIS; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CYTOLOGY; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION; MAMMALIAN EMBRYO; METABOLISM; OBSTETRIC DELIVERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ANTI-MULLERIAN HORMONE; COHORT STUDIES; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; EMBRYO, MAMMALIAN; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREGNANCY; PROGNOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84973560664     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14795876     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-016-0924-7     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Kissin DM, Kulkarni A, Kushnir VA, Jamieson DJ. National ART Surveilance System group. Number of embryos transferred after in vitro fertilization and good perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):239-47.
2. Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992. HR 4773ENR.
3. Kushnir VA, Vidali A, Barad DH, Gleicher N. The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):736-41.
4. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Is it time for a paradigm shift in understanding embryo selection? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:3.
5. van Loendersloot L, Repping S, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F, van Wely M. Prediction models in in vitro fertilization; where are we? A mini review. J Adv Res. 2014;5(3):295-301.
6. Nelson SM, Lawlor DA. Predicting live birth, preterm delivery, and low birth weight in infants born from in vitro fertilization: a prospective study of 144,018 treatment cycles. PLoS Med. 2011;8(1):e10000386.
7. Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, Mollison J. Factors associated with failed treatment: an analysis of 121,744 women embarking on their first IVF cycles. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e82249.
8. Choi B, Bosch E, Lannon BM, Leveille MC, Wong WH, Leader A, Pellicer A, Penzias AS, Yao MW. Personalized prediction of first-cycle in vitro fertilization success. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1905-11.
9. Van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Repping S, Sossuyt PM, van der Veen F. Individualized decision making in IVF: calculating the chances of pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(11):2972-80.
10. te Velde ER, Nieboer D, Lintsen AM, Braat DD, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD, Vergouwe Y. Comparison of two models predicting IVF success; the effect of time trends on model performance. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(1):57-64.
11. Smith AD, Tilling K, Lawlor DA, Nelson SM. Extenal validation and calibration of IVF predict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilization cycles. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0121357.
12. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, Barfield WD. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance-United States, 2012. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2015;64(Suppl 6):1-29.
13. Barad DH, Weghofer A, Gleicher N. Age-specific levels for basal follicle-stimulating hormone assessment of ovarian function. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1404-10.
14. Barad DH, Weghofer A, Gleicher N. Utility of age-specific serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22(3):284-91.
15. Lukaszuk K, Kunicki M, Liss J, Lukaszuk M, Jakiel G. Use of ovarian reserve parameters for predicting live births in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;168(2):173-7.
16. Nelson LM. Clinical practice. Primary ovarian insufficiency. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):606-14.
17. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Defining ovarian reserve to better understand ovarian aging. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:23.
18. Gleicher N, Barad DH. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation in diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Reprod Bio Endocrinol. 2011;9:67.
19. BenMeir A, Burstein E, BorregoAlvarez A, Chong J, Wong E, Yavorska T, Naranian T, Chi M, Wang Y, Bentov Y, Alexis J, Meriano J, Sung HK, Gasser DL, Moley KH, Hekimi S, Casper RE, Jurisicova A. Coenzyme Q10 restores oocyte mitochondrial function and fertility during reproductive aging. Aging Cell. 2015;14(5):887-95.
20. Nomura M, Iwase A, Furui K, Kitagawa T, Matsui Y, Yoshikawa M, Kikkawa F. Preferable correlation to blastocyst development and pregnancy rates with a new embryo grading system specific for day 3 embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(1):23-8.
21. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. The danger of ignoring pregnancy and delivery rates in ART. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1828-9.
22. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:e6-9.
23. Kushnir VA, Gleicher N. Male factor infertility: prediction models for assisted reproductive technology. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11(9):492-3.
24. Seifer DB, Tal R. Personalzed prediction of live birth: are we there yet. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(2):283-5.
25. Wu Y-G, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Lazzaroni-Tealdi E, Wang Q, Albertini DF, Gleicher N. Aging-related premature luteinization of granulosa cells is avoided by early oocyte retrieval. J Endocrinol. 2015;226:167-80.
26. Van Helden J, Weiskirchen R. Performance of the two new fully automated anti-Müllerian hormone immunoassays compared with the clinical standard assay. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(8):1918-26.
27. Nelson SM, Fleming R, Gaudoin M, Choi B, Santo-Domingo K, Yao M. Antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as prognostic indicators in a personalized prediction model of live birth. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:325-32.
28. Tal R, Tal O, Seifer BJ, Seifer DB. Antimüllerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(1):119-30.
29. Wells D. Embryo aneuploidy and the role of morphological and genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):274-7.
30. Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1846-50.
31. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:22.
32. Seifer DB, Tal R. Personalzed prediction of live birth: are we there yet. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:283-5.
33. Maclaughlin DT, Donahoe PK. Müllerian inhibiting substance/anti-Müllerian hormone: a potential therapeutic agent for human ovarian and other cancers. Future Oncol. 2010;6:391-405.