Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2024; 42(01): 025-033
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787273
Review Article

Anti-Mullerian Hormone Assessment in Assisted Reproductive Technique Outcome and Natural Conception

Inès Sellami    *
1   Service de Médecine de la Reproduction et Préservation de la Fertilité, APHP-Université Paris-Saclay, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, Clamart, France
,
Anne Laure Barbotin    *
2   CHU Lille, Service de Biologie de la Reproduction, Université de Lille, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, Lille, France
3   CHU Lille, Faculté de Médecine Henri Warembourg, Université de Lille, Lille Cedex, France
,
Valérie Bernard 
4   Service de Gynécologie et Médecine de la Reproduction, Centre Aliénor d'Aquitaine, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
5   University Bordeaux, Bordeaux Institute in Oncology-BRIC-BioGo Team, INSERM U1312, Bordeaux, France
,
Geoffroy Robin 
3   CHU Lille, Faculté de Médecine Henri Warembourg, Université de Lille, Lille Cedex, France
6   CHU Lille, Service Assistance Médicale à la Procréation et Préservation de la Fertilité - Service de Gynécologie Médicale, Orthogénie et Sexologie, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, Lille, France
,
Sophie Catteau-Jonard
3   CHU Lille, Faculté de Médecine Henri Warembourg, Université de Lille, Lille Cedex, France
6   CHU Lille, Service Assistance Médicale à la Procréation et Préservation de la Fertilité - Service de Gynécologie Médicale, Orthogénie et Sexologie, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, Lille, France
,
Charlotte Sonigo    *
1   Service de Médecine de la Reproduction et Préservation de la Fertilité, APHP-Université Paris-Saclay, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, Clamart, France
7   Université Paris Saclay, Inserm, Physiologie et Physiopathologie Endocrinienne, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
,
Maeliss Peigné    *
8   Service de Médecine de la Reproduction et Préservation de la Fertilité, AP-HP-Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Bondy, France
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In recent years, the prevalence of infertility has increased, and appears to affect approximately one in six couples. Some of them must perform assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in order to achieve pregnancy. As a result, growing interest has arisen about predictive factors of pregnancy and live birth with and without ART. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a glycoprotein discovered in the 1950s in male embryonic sexual differentiation. Later, in 1984, its role in folliculogenesis was reported: secreted by granulosa cells, this hormone is involved in the regulation of the recruitment of primordial follicles and in follicular growth. AMH assays were developed for women in 1990s, and the serum AMH level has rapidly become a crucial element in managing women's fertility. Based mainly on its ability to be a quantitative but indirect marker of ovarian reserve, the serum AMH assay is widely used in reproductive medicine and ART. This review summarizes current knowledge of the AMH assessment in the field of reproductive medicine. We focus on the role of AMH level to predict spontaneous pregnancy occurrence, ART outcomes, and fertility preservation outcomes.

Keywords

AMH - fertility - reproductive medicine - pregnancy - ART

* These authors contributed equally to this work.




Publication History

Article published online:
18 July 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Fleming R, Seifer DB, Frattarelli JL, Ruman J. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count versus anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31 (04) 486-496
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A. et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20 (03) 370-385
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Teede HJ, Tay CT, Laven JJE. et al. Recommendations from the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2023; 108 (10) 2447-2469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bry-Gauillard H, Larrat-Ledoux F, Levaillant JM. et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone and ovarian morphology in women with isolated hypogonadotropic hypogonadism/Kallmann syndrome: effects of recombinant human FSH. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017; 102 (04) 1102-1111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hagen CP, Vestergaard S, Juul A. et al. Low concentration of circulating antiMüllerian hormone is not predictive of reduced fecundability in young healthy women: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (06) 1602-8.e2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zarek SM, Mitchell EM, Sjaarda LA. et al. Is anti-Müllerian hormone associated with fecundability? findings from the EAGeR trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015; 100 (11) 4215-4221
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Streuli I, de Mouzon J, Paccolat C. et al. AMH concentration is not related to effective time to pregnancy in women who conceive naturally. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 28 (02) 216-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Depmann M, Broer SL, Eijkemans MJC. et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone does not predict time to pregnancy: results of a prospective cohort study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2017; 33 (08) 644-648
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Steiner AZ, Pritchard D, Stanczyk FZ. et al. Association between biomarkers of ovarian reserve and infertility among older women of reproductive age. JAMA 2017; 318 (14) 1367-1376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Koo HS, Song IO, Cha SH, Park CW, Kim HO. The likelihood of achieving pregnancy through timed coitus in young infertile women with decreased ovarian reserve. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2018; 45 (01) 31-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Murto T, Bjuresten K, Landgren B-M, Stavreus-Evers A. Predictive value of hormonal parameters for live birth in women with unexplained infertility and male infertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2013; 11: 61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yarde F, Voorhuis M, Dólleman M, Knauff EAH, Eijkemans MJC, Broekmans FJM. Antimüllerian hormone as predictor of reproductive outcome in subfertile women with elevated basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels: a follow-up study. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (03) 831-838
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Casadei L, Dominici F, Scaldaferri D, Vicomandi V, Ciacci S, Piccione E. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels and spontaneous pregnancy in women undergoing surgery for benign ovarian cysts. Gynecol Endocrinol 2018; 34 (10) 909-912
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stochino-Loi E, Darwish B, Mircea O. et al. Does preoperative antimüllerian hormone level influence postoperative pregnancy rate in women undergoing surgery for severe endometriosis?. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (03) 707-713.e3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Harris BS, Jukic AM, Truong T, Nagle CT, Erkanli A, Steiner AZ. Markers of ovarian reserve as predictors of future fertility. Fertil Steril 2023; 119 (01) 99-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Murugappan G, Shahine L, Lathi RB. Antimullerian hormone is a predictor of live birth in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Res Pract 2019; 5: 2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pils S, Stepien N, Kurz C. et al. Does anti-Mullerian hormone predict the outcome of further pregnancies in idiopathic recurrent miscarriage? A retrospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019; 299 (01) 259-265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Guideline Group on POI. Webber L, Davies M, Anderson R, Bartlett J, Braat D. et al. ESHRE Guideline: management of women with premature ovarian insufficiency. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (05) 926-937
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dumont A, Robin G, Catteau-Jonard S, Dewailly D. Role of anti-Müllerian hormone in pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome: a review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015; 13: 137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vagios S, Sacha CR, Hammer KC. et al. Response to ovulation induction treatments in women with polycystic ovary syndrome as a function of serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021; 38 (07) 1827-1833
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Komorowski AS, Hughes L, Sarkar P. et al. Antimüllerian hormone level predicts ovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with clomiphene and metformin. Fertil Steril 2024; 121 (04) 660-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Amer SA, Li TC, Ledger WL. The value of measuring anti-Mullerian hormone in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing laparoscopic ovarian diathermy. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (11) 2760-2766
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gülşen MS, Ulu İ, Yıldırım Köpük Ş, Kıran G. The role of anti-Müllerian hormone in predicting clomiphene citrate resistance in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Gynecol Endocrinol 2019; 35 (01) 86-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hestiantoro A, Negoro YS, Afrita Y, Wiweko B, Sumapradja K, Natadisastra M. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of polycystic ovary syndrome treated with clomiphene citrate. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2016; 43 (04) 207-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mahran A, Abdelmeged A, El-Adawy AR, Eissa MK, Shaw RW, Amer SA. The predictive value of circulating anti-Müllerian hormone in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome receiving clomiphene citrate: a prospective observational study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013; 98 (10) 4170-4175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Xi W, Yang Y, Mao H, Zhao X, Liu M, Fu S. Circulating anti-Mullerian hormone as predictor of ovarian response to clomiphene citrate in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Ovarian Res 2016; 9: 3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Vaiarelli A, Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C. et al. Limited ability of circulating anti-Müllerian hormone to predict dominant follicular recruitment in PCOS women treated with clomiphene citrate: a comparison of two different assays. Gynecol Endocrinol 2016; 32 (03) 227-230
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pigny P, Gorisse E, Ghulam A. et al. Comparative assessment of five serum antimüllerian hormone assays for the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2016; 105 (04) 1063-1069.e3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vagios S, James KE, Sacha CR. et al. A patient-specific model combining antimüllerian hormone and body mass index as a predictor of polycystic ovary syndrome and other oligo-anovulation disorders. Fertil Steril 2021; 115 (01) 229-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Huyghe L, Robin C, Dumont A. et al. How to choose the optimal starting dose of clomiphene citrate (50 or 100 mg per day) for a first cycle of ovulation induction in anovulatory PCOS women?. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (15) 4943
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mehrafza M, Zare Yousefi T, Saghati Jalali S, Raoufi A, Hosseinzadeh E, Samadnia S. et al. Live birth rate following intrauterine insemination in women with low or very low level of serum anti-Müllerian hormone. JKMU 2020; 27 (04) DOI: 10.22062/jkmu.2020.91022.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Moreau J, Gatimel N, Simon C. et al. Age-specific anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels poorly affects cumulative live birth rate after intra-uterine insemination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X 2019; 3: 100043
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tiegs AW, Sun L, Scott Jr RT, Goodman LR. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes following intrauterine insemination in young women with decreased versus normal ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (04) 788-796.e4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tremellen K, Kolo M. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone is a useful measure of quantitative ovarian reserve but does not predict the chances of live-birth pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2010; 50 (06) 568-572
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lamazou F, Fuchs F, Genro V. et al. [Intra-uterine insemination outcomes according to the serum AMH level on day 3]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2012; 41 (02) 122-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bakas P, Boutas I, Creatsa M. et al. Can anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) predict the outcome of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian stimulation?. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 31 (10) 765-768
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Seckin B, Tokmak A, Yumusak OH. The role of anti-Müllerian hormone in prediction of pregnancy in young and older women with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination. J Chin Med Assoc 2019; 82 (04) 300-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Freiesleben Nl, Rosendahl M, Johannsen TH. et al. Prospective investigation of serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentration in ovulatory intrauterine insemination patients: a preliminary study. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 20 (05) 582-587
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Speyer BE, Abramov B, Saab W. et al. Factors influencing the outcome of intrauterine insemination (IUI): age, clinical variables and significant thresholds. J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 33 (07) 697-700
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Li HWR, Yeung WSB, Lau EYL, Ho PC, Ng EHY. Evaluating the performance of serum antimullerian hormone concentration in predicting the live birth rate of controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (06) 2177-2181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Elgindy EA, El-Haieg DO, El-Sebaey A. Anti-Müllerian hormone: correlation of early follicular, ovulatory and midluteal levels with ovarian response and cycle outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril 2008; 89 (06) 1670-1676
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D. et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16 (02) 113-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 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 (01) 46-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 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; 99 (06) 1644-1653
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hamdine O, Eijkemans MJC, Lentjes EGW. et al. Antimüllerian hormone: prediction of cumulative live birth in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2015; 104 (04) 891-898.e2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Seifer DB, Tal O, Wantman E, Edul P, Baker VL. Prognostic indicators of assisted reproduction technology outcomes of cycles with ultralow serum antimüllerian hormone: a multivariate analysis of over 5,000 autologous cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System database for 2012-2013. Fertil Steril 2016; 105 (02) 385-93.e3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Tal R, Seifer DB, Tal R, Granger E, Wantman E, Tal O. AMH highly correlates with cumulative live birth rate in women with diminished ovarian reserve independent of age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2021; 106 (09) 2754-2766
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 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; 16 (01) 117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Papathanasiou A, Mawal N. The risk of poor ovarian response during repeat IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 42 (04) 742-747
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Riggs RM, Duran EH, Baker MW. et al. 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 (02) 202.e1-202.e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Qiao J, Zhang Y, Liang X. et al. A randomised controlled trial to clinically validate follitropin delta in its individualised dosing regimen for ovarian stimulation in Asian IVF/ICSI patients. Hum Reprod 2021; 36 (09) 2452-2462
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Ishihara O, Klein BM, Arce J-C. Japanese Follitropin Delta Phase 2 Trial Group. Randomized, assessor-blind, antimüllerian hormone-stratified, dose-response trial in Japanese in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta. Fertil Steril 2021; 115 (06) 1478-1486
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Ishihara O, Arce J-C. Japanese Follitropin Delta Phase 3 Trial (STORK) Group. Individualized follitropin delta dosing reduces OHSS risk in Japanese IVF/ICSI patients: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 42 (05) 909-918
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Allegra A, Marino A, Volpes A. et al. A randomized controlled trial investigating the use of a predictive nomogram for the selection of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2017; 34 (04) 429-438
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Nyboe Andersen A, Nelson SM, Fauser BC, García-Velasco JA, Klein BM, Arce JC. ESTHER-1 Study Group. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (02) 387-396.e4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Daney de Marcillac F, Pinton A, Guillaume A, Sagot P, Pirrello O, Rongieres C. What are the likely IVF/ICSI outcomes if there is a discrepancy between serum AMH and FSH levels? A multicenter retrospective study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2017; 46 (08) 629-635
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Broer SL, Dólleman M, van Disseldorp J. et al; IPD-EXPORT Study Group. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (02) 420-9.e7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA. et al; IMPORT Study Group. 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 2013; 19 (01) 26-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Esteves SC, Yarali H, Vuong LN. et al. Cumulative delivery rate per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in POSEIDON patients: a real-world evidence study of 9073 patients. Hum Reprod 2021; 36 (08) 2157-2169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Fernández-Sánchez M, Visnova H, Yuzpe A, Klein BM, Mannaerts B, Arce J-C. ESTHER-1 and ESTHER-2 Study Group. Individualization of the starting dose of follitropin delta reduces the overall OHSS risk and/or the need for additional preventive interventions: cumulative data over three stimulation cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38 (04) 528-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Ngwenya O, Lensen SF, Vail A, Mol BWJ, Broekmans FJ, Wilkinson J. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 1 (01) CD012693
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Morin SJ, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Neal SA, Scott RT, Seli E. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patients <38 years old: a quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (08) 1489-1498
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Pipari A, Guillen A, Cruz M, Pacheco A, Garcia-Velasco JA. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are not associated with aneuploidy rates in human blastocysts. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 42 (06) 1211-1218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Scantamburlo VM, Linsingen RV, Centa LJR. et al. Association between decreased ovarian reserve and poor oocyte quality. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2021; 64 (06) 532-539
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Chen P, Chen P, Guo Y, Fang C, Li T. Interaction between chronic endometritis caused endometrial microbiota disorder and endometrial immune environment change in recurrent implantation failure. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 748447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Dai X, Wang Y, Yang H. et al. AMH has no role in predicting oocyte quality in women with advanced age undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 19750
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Gomez R, Schorsch M, Hahn T. et al. The influence of AMH on IVF success. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 293 (03) 667-673
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Lie Fong S, Baart EB, Martini E. et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone: a marker for oocyte quantity, oocyte quality and embryo quality?. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 16 (05) 664-670
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Karlıkaya G, Boynukalin FK, Gultomruk M. et al. Euploidy rates of embryos in young patients with good and low prognosis according to the POSEIDON criteria. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 42 (04) 733-741
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Jiang X, Yan J, Sheng Y, Sun M, Cui L, Chen Z-J. Low anti-Müllerian hormone concentration is associated with increased risk of embryonic aneuploidy in women of advanced age. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 37 (02) 178-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. The predictive accuracy of anti-Müllerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20 (04) 560-570
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 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 (01) 119-30.e3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Peigné M, Bernard V, Dijols L. et al. Using serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels to predict the chance of live birth after spontaneous or assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2023; 38 (09) 1789-1806
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Brodin T, Hadziosmanovic N, Berglund L, Olovsson M, Holte J. Antimüllerian hormone levels are strongly associated with live-birth rates after assisted reproduction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013; 98 (03) 1107-1114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Ligon S, Lustik M, Levy G, Pier B. Low antimüllerian hormone (AMH) is associated with decreased live birth after in vitro fertilization when follicle-stimulating hormone and AMH are discordant. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (01) 73-81.e1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 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 (02) 325-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Khader A, Lloyd SM, McConnachie A. et al. External validation of anti-Müllerian hormone based prediction of live birth in assisted conception. J Ovarian Res 2013; 6 (01) 3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 La Marca A, Nelson SM, Sighinolfi G. et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based prediction model for a live birth in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 22 (04) 341-349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 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 (02) 173-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Lukaszuk K, Liss J, Kunicki M. et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is a strong predictor of live birth in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol 2014; 14 (03) 176-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Fridén B, Sjöblom P, Menezes J. Using anti-Müllerian hormone to identify a good prognosis group in women of advanced reproductive age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 51 (05) 411-415
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Lee TH, Liu CH, Huang CC, Hsieh KC, Lin PM, Lee MS. Impact of female age and male infertility on ovarian reserve markers to predict outcome of assisted reproduction technology cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009; 7: 100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Merhi Z, Zapantis A, Berger DS, Jindal SK. Determining an anti-Mullerian hormone cutoff level to predict clinical pregnancy following in vitro fertilization in women with severely diminished ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30 (10) 1361-1365
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Alson SSE, Bungum LJ, Giwercman A, Henic E. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels are associated with live birth rates in ART, but the predictive ability of anti-Müllerian hormone is modest. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 225: 199-204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Balachandren N, Salman M, Diu NL, Schwab S, Rajah K, Mavrelos D. Ovarian reserve as a predictor of cumulative live birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 252: 273-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Ezoe K, Ni X, Kobayashi T, Kato K. Anti-Müllerian hormone is correlated with cumulative live birth in minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020; 20 (01) 740
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 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; 17 (01) 51-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Lee Y, Kim TH, Park JK. et al. Predictive value of antral follicle count and serum anti-Müllerian hormone: Which is better for live birth prediction in patients aged over 40 with their first IVF treatment?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 221: 151-155
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Li HWR, Lee VCY, Lau EYL, Yeung WSB, Ho PC, Ng EHY. Role of baseline antral follicle count and anti-Mullerian hormone in prediction of cumulative live birth in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle: a retrospective cohort analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8 (04) e61095
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Liu L, Zhou C. Anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count differ in their ability to predict cumulative treatment outcomes of the first complete ovarian stimulation cycle in patients from POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2020; 46 (09) 1801-1808
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Nelson SM, Yates RW, 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 (09) 2414-2421
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Peuranpää P, Hautamäki H, Halttunen-Nieminen M, Hydén-Granskog C, Tiitinen A. Low anti-Müllerian hormone level is not a risk factor for early pregnancy loss in IVF/ICSI treatment. Hum Reprod 2020; 35 (03) 504-515
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Reijnders IF, Nelen WLDM, IntHout J, van Herwaarden AE, Braat DD, Fleischer K. The value of anti-Müllerian hormone in low and extremely low ovarian reserve in relation to live birth after in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 200: 45-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H. et al. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24 (06) 614-620
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Decanter C, Robin G, Mailliez A. et al. Prospective assessment of follicular growth and the oocyte cohort after ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in 90 cancer patients versus 180 matched controls. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36 (05) 543-551
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Cobo A, García-Velasco J, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Elective and Onco-fertility preservation: factors related to IVF outcomes. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (12) 2222-2231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Cardozo ER, Thomson AP, Karmon AE, Dickinson KA, Wright DL, Sabatini ME. Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: a 17-year experience. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32 (04) 587-596
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Fabbri R, Macciocca M, Melotti C. et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone as an ovarian reserve marker in young cancer women who undergo ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Future Oncol 2014; 10 (08) 1343-1351
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Garavaglia E, Sala C, Taccagni G. et al. Fertility preservation in endometriosis patients: anti-Müllerian hormone is a reliable marker of the ovarian follicle density. Front Surg 2017; 4: 40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Hornshøj VG, Dueholm M, Mamsen LS, Ernst E, Andersen CY. Hormonal response in patients transplanted with cryopreserved ovarian tissue is independent of whether freezing was performed in childhood or adulthood. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021; 38 (11) 3039-3045
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Janse F, Donnez J, Anckaert E, de Jong FH, Fauser BCJM, Dolmans M-M. Limited value of ovarian function markers following orthotopic transplantation of ovarian tissue after gonadotoxic treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011; 96 (04) 1136-1144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Anderson RA, Amant F, Braat D. et al; ESHRE Guideline Group on Female Fertility Preservation. ESHRE guideline: female fertility preservation. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020 (04) hoaa052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Grynberg M, Sermondade N, Sellami I, Benoit A, Mayeur A, Sonigo C. In vitro maturation of oocytes for fertility preservation: a comprehensive review. F&S Reviews 2022; 3 (04) 211-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Sonigo C, Bajeux J, Boubaya M. et al. In vitro maturation is a viable option for urgent fertility preservation in young women with hematological conditions. Hematol Oncol 2020; 38 (04) 560-564
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Sonigo C, Simon C, Boubaya M. et al. What threshold values of antral follicle count and serum AMH levels should be considered for oocyte cryopreservation after in vitro maturation?. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (07) 1493-1500
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Virant-Klun I, Bedenk J, Jancar N. In vitro maturation of immature oocytes for fertility preservation in cancer patients compared to control patients with fertility problems in an in vitro fertilization program. Radiol Oncol 2021; 56 (01) 119-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Peigné M, Decanter C. Serum AMH level as a marker of acute and long-term effects of chemotherapy on the ovarian follicular content: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12: 26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Anderson RA, Wallace WHB. Antimüllerian hormone, the assessment of the ovarian reserve, and the reproductive outcome of the young patient with cancer. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (06) 1469-1475
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Anders C, Marcom PK, Peterson B. et al. A pilot study of predictive markers of chemotherapy-related amenorrhea among premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer. Cancer Invest 2008; 26 (03) 286-295
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Lutchman Singh K, Muttukrishna S, Stein RC. et al. Predictors of ovarian reserve in young women with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2007; 96 (12) 1808-1816
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Hamy AS, Porcher R, Cuvier C. et al. Ovarian reserve in breast cancer: assessment with anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 29 (05) 573-580
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Hamy AS, Porcher R, Eskenazi S. et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy: a retrospective evaluation of subsequent pregnancies. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 32 (03) 299-307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Decanter C, Morschhauser F, Pigny P, Lefebvre C, Gallo C, Dewailly D. Anti-Müllerian hormone follow-up in young women treated by chemotherapy for lymphoma: preliminary results. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 20 (02) 280-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Brougham MFH, Crofton PM, Johnson EJ, Evans N, Anderson RA, Wallace WHB. Anti-Müllerian hormone is a marker of gonadotoxicity in pre- and postpubertal girls treated for cancer: a prospective study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 97 (06) 2059-2067
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Goldman RH, Racowsky C, Farland LV, Munné S, Ribustello L, Fox JH. Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (04) 853-859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Maslow BL, Guarnaccia MM, Ramirez L, Klein JU. Likelihood of achieving a 50%, 60%, or 70% estimated live birth rate threshold with 1 or 2 cycles of planned oocyte cryopreservation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020; 37 (07) 1637-1643
    PubMedGoogle Scholar