Basal Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone Level as a Predictor of Clinical Outcomes in Freezing-all Embryo Transfer Program

Abstract

As a novel biomarker, there is inconsistent evidence regarding the association between anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and live birth rate in freezing-all embryo transfer cycles. We aim to assess the prognostic effect of baseline AMH on clinical outcomes, especially live birth rate in freezing-all embryo transfer cycles. A total of 828 non-polycystic ovary patients that underwent their first frozen-thawed embryo transfers in our center between January 2010 and January 2015 were recruited in this retrospective analysis. Patients were stratified into three groups based on their baseline AMH concentration: low AMH group (<1.4 ng/mL), middle AMH group (1.4–5.8 ng/mL) and high AMH group (>5.8 ng/mL). The results showed that low AMH level was associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The differences in implantation rate (21.9% vs. 43.2% vs. 58.8%, P<0.001), clinical pregnancy rate (32.0% vs. 55.2% vs. 65.7%, P<0.001), live birth delivery rate (21.8% vs. 43.6% vs. 52.7%, P<0.001) and miscarriage rate (31.8% vs. 17.5% vs. 15.4%, P=0.014) among the three groups were statistically significant. After adjusting confounders (i.e. age, baseline FSH level, AFC, endometrium thickness, endometrium preparation protocols, number of embryos transferred, etiologies of infertility), differences in live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate between groups remained significant. The further age subgroup analysis demonstrated that low AMH concentration was significantly associated with poor outcomes both in young and advanced patients. The area under the curve for serum AMH, age, AFC and FSH were 0.635, 0.634, 0.615 and 0.543 respectively, for predicting live birth. In conclusion, baseline AMH was an independent prognostic factor of live birth rate of freezing-all embryo transfers, but its predictive value on live birth rate was of limited clinical value.

Keywords

anti-Müllerian hormone / freezing-all embryo transfer / live birth rate

References

[1] RiniM, MagnesBZ, PinesE, et al.. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Fertil Steril, 2013, 99(1): 156-162

[2] ShapiroBS, DaneshmandST, GarnerFC, et al.. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. J Fertil Steril, 2011, 96(2): 516-518

[3] KansalKS, RatcliffeSJ, MilmanL, et al.. Perinatal morbidity after in vitro fertilization is lower with frozen embryo transfer. J Fertil Steril, 2011, 95(2): 548-553

[4] SazonovaA, KllenK, Thurin-KjellbergA, et al.. Obstetric outcome in singletons after in vitro fertilization with cryopreserved/thawed embryos. J Hum Reprod, 2012, 27(5): 1343-1350

[5] BoriniA, CattoliM, BullettiC, et al.. Clinical efficiency of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. J Ann N YAcad Sci, 2010, 1127(1): 49-58

[6] RoqueM. Freeze-all policy: is it time for that. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2014, 32(2): 171-176

[7] JossoN, CateRL, PicardJY, et al.. Anti-müllerian hormone: the Jost factor. Recent Prog Horm Res, 1993, 48(1): 1-59

[8] CateRL, MattalianoRJ, HessionC, et al.. Isolation of the bovine and human genes for Müllerian inhibiting substance and expression of the human gene in animal cells. J Cell, 1986, 45(5): 685-698

[9] da SilvaAL, EvenM, GrynbergM, et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone: player and marker of folliculogenesis. Gynecol Obstet Fertil (French), 2010, 38(7–8): 471

[10] LavenJS, MuldersAG, VisserJA, et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone serum concentrations in normoovulatory and anovulatory women of reproductive age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2004, 89(1): 318-323

[11] ModiD, BhartiyaD, PuriC. Developmental expression and cellular distribution of Mullerian inhibiting substance in the primate ovary. J Reprod, 2006, 132(3): 443-453

[12] BaarendsWM, HoogerbruggeJW, PostM, et al.. Antimullerian hormone and anti-mullerian hormone type IIreceptor messenger ribonucleic acid expression during postnatal testis development and in the adult testis of the rat. J Endocrinology, 1995, 136(12): 5614-5622

[13] LaMA, BroekmansFA. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know. J Hum Reprod, 2009, 24(9): 2264-2275

[14] DewaillyD, AndersenCY, BalenA, et al.. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Müllerian hormone in women. J Hum Reprod Update, 2014, 20(3): 370

[15] EbnerT, SommergruberM, MoserM, et al.. Basal level of anti-Müllerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. J Hum Reprod, 2006, 21(8): 2022-2026

[16] SmeenkJM, SweepFC, ZielhuisGA, et al.. Antimüllerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection. J Fertil Steril, 2007, 87(1): 223-226

[17] FongSL, BaartEB, MartiniE, et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone: a marker for oocyte quantity, oocyte quality and embryo quality. J Reprod Biomed Online, 2008, 16(5): 664-670

[18] LekamgeDN, BarryM, KoloM, et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. J Reprod Biomed Online, 2007, 14(5): 602-610

[19] IliodromitiS, KelseyTW, WuO, et al.. The predictive accuracy of anti-Müllerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Hum Reprod Update, 2014, 20(4): 560-570

[20] TalR, TalO, SeiferBJ, et al.. Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy following art: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril, 2014, 102(3): e337-e337

[21] SteerCV, MillsCL, TanSL, et al.. The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. J Hum Reprod, 1992, 7(1): 117

[22] Zegers-HochschildF, AdamsonGD, MouzonJD, et al.. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. J Fertil Steril, 2009, 92(5): 1520-1524

[23] ModiD, BhartiyaD, PuriC. Developmental expression and cellular distribution of Müllerian inhibiting substance in the primate ovary. J Reproduction, 2006, 132(3): 443-453

[24] La MarcaA, StabileG, ArtenisioAC, et al.. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. J Hum Reprod, 2006, 21(12): 3103-3107

[25] HehenkampWJ, LoomanCW, ThemmenAP, et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial fluctuation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2006, 91(10): 4057-4063

[26] TsepelidisS, DevrekerF, DemeestereI, et al.. Stable serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone during the menstrual cycle: a prospective study in normoovulatory women. J Hum Reprod, 2007, 22(7): 1837-1840

[27] NelsonSM, YatesRW, FlemingR. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles— implications for individualization of therapy. J Hum Reprod, 2007, 22(9): 2414-2421

[28] EldargevaT, BenchetritA, SpitzIM, et al.. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(11): 3178-3183

[29] LehmannP, VélezMP, SaumetJ, et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH): a reliable biomarker of oocyte quality in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2014, 31(4): 493-498

[30] van RooijIA, BroekmansFJ, HunaultCC, et al.. Use of ovarian reserve tests for the prediction of ongoing pregnancy in couples with unexplained or mild male infertility. J Reprod Biomed Online, 2006, 12(2): 182-190

[31] BroekmansFJ, KweeJ, HendriksDJ, et al.. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. J Hum Reprod Update, 2006, 12(6): 685-718

[32] HagenCP, VestergaardS, JuulMA, et al.. Low concentration of circulating antimüllerian hormone is not predictive of reduced fecundability in young healthy women: a prospective cohort study. J Fertil Steril, 2012, 98(6): 1602-1608

[33] MitwallyMF, BhakooHS, CrickardK, et al.. Estradiol production during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation correlates with treatment outcome in women undergoing in vitrofertilization-embryo transfer. J Fertil Steril, 2006, 86(3): 588-596

[34] ChaiJ, LeeKF, NgEH, et al.. Ovarian stimulation modulates steroid receptor expression and spheroid attachment in peri-implantation endometria: studies on natural and stimulated cycles. J Fertil Steril, 2011, 96(3): 764-768

[35] SseA, BungumLJ, GiwercmanA, et al.. Antimüllerian hormone levels are associated with live birth rates in ART, but the predictive ability of antimüllerian hormone is modest. J Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2018199-204

[36] LiHW, LeeVC, LauEY, et al.. Role of baseline antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone in the index stimulation cycle of IVF treatment in predicting outcome of subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers. J Gynecol Endocrinol, 2014, 30(7): 490-493

[37] BroerSL, DisseldorpJV, BroezeKA, et al.. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. J Hum Reprod Update, 2013, 19(1): 26-36

[38] BancsiLF, BroekmansFJ, EijkemansMJ, et al.. Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. J Fertil Steril, 2002, 77(2): 328-336

[39] OehningerS, NelsonSM, VerweijP, et al.. Predictive factors for ovarian response in a corifollitropin alfa/ GnRH antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles. J Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2015, 13: 117

[40] LekamgeDN, BarryM, KoloM, et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. J Reprod Biomed Online, 2007, 14(5): 602-610

[41] BoomsmaCM, MacklonNS. What can the clinician do to improve implantation. J Reprod Biomed Online, 2006, 14(6): 27-37