Biomarkers of Ovarian Reserve

William E. Roudebush, Wendy J. Kivens, and Jessica M. Mattke

Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract
Go to:

Introduction
The primary function of the female ovary is the production of a mature and viable oocyte capable
of fertilization and subsequent embryo development and implantation. At birth, the ovary
contains a finite number of oocytes available for folliculogenesis. This finite number of available
oocytes is termed “the ovarian reserve”. The determination of ovarian reserve is important in the
assessment and treatment of infertility. As the ovary ages, the ovarian reserve will decline.
Ovarian reserve (OR) refers to the number and quality of oocytes that, at any given age, are
available to produce a dominant follicle late in the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. By
estimating the OR, a prediction of the remaining reproductive lifetime could be assessed as well
as the likely success of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF)
(Baird et al. 2005). None of the OR tests directly measures the total number of actual oocytes.
Rather, it is assumed that the number of recruitable and developing follicles (pre-antral and
antral) is directly related to the total oocyte pool. During fetal life the ovaries are endowed with
the entire stock of follicles (oocytes surrounded by ovarian granulosa cells) that will serve a
woman’s reproductive life. Because the number of quality oocytes available for recruitment
during folliculogenesis changes markedly during a woman’s lifetime, the tendency is for OR
physical evaluation tests to inaccurately estimate the total pool of “good-viable” oocytes. This
review will look at the physical tools utilized to determine ovarian reserve.
Infertility affects approximately 15%–20% of reproductive aged couples. The most commonly
used biomarker test to assess ovarian reserve is the measurement of day 3 follicle stimulating
hormone (FSH); this blood test determines the level of FSH on day 3 of the menstrual cycle.
Cycle day 3 is the preferred testing day due to the expected low level of estradiol, which in turn
affects FSH levels via negative feedback control. Therefore, Day-3 FSH levels would be
expected to be low, a higher than normal day-3 FSH level would indicate a diminished ovarian
reserve. However, this day still requires standardization to ensure reproducibility. Typically, Day-
3 FSH and estradiol are both measured. However, other blood tests (antimüllerian hormone and,
or inhibin-B) are gaining popularity since they provide more direct determination of ovarian
status, whereas Day-3 FSH and estradiol are indirect measurements. This review will look at the
aforementioned hormones as biomarkers of ovarian reserve.
Go to:

Overview of Reproductive Endocrinology

From the hypothalamus, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) acts upon the anterior pituitary
to produce both FSH and luteinizing hormone (LH) both of which target the ovary in females.
FSH is responsible for follicular recruitment and growth and for estrogen (mostly β-estradiol)
conversion from androgens during folliculogenesis. Estrogens (e.g. estradiol, E2) are the primary
hormones that provide negative feedback to the hypothalamus and anterior pituitary to inhibit
FSH and LH secretion. Granulosa cells are the target cells within the ovary for FSH activity. LH
is responsible for final follicular and oocyte maturation, subsequent ovulation, and corpus luteum
(CL) formation. During folliculogenesis, LH acts upon the ovarian theca cells to produce
androgens. Following ovulation, LH will promote estrogen and progesterone secretion by the CL.
In addition to steroidal hormones, the ovary (i.e. granulosa cells) also produces a number of
peptide hormones of the transforming growth factor (TGF)-β/activin superfamily. These peptides
hormones may include relaxin, inhibin A, inhibin B, activin, follistatin and antimüllerian
hormone (AMH) also called Müllerian inhibiting substance (MIS). For the purpose of this
review, we will refer this peptide hormone as AMH.
The actions of activin include granulosa cell proliferation, upregulation of FSH and LH receptor
expression, enhancement of aromatase activity and subsequent estradiol production, suppression
of androgen production, increased production of inhibins and follistatin and the enhancement of
oocyte developmental competence. The primary action of follistatin is to bind to and neutralize
activin.
Inhibin consists of two distinct chains, or subunits (alpha and beta), linked together. Inhibin A
consists of the alpha-subunit and beta A-subunit. Inhibin B consists of the alpha-subunit and beta
B-subunit. Only the dimeric forms of the molecule, containing both the alpha and beta subunits,
are bioactive, although the free subunit forms exist in circulation. Inhibins are secreted by ovarian
granulosa cells in females and by testicular Sertoli cells in males. Both inhibin A and inhibin B
are produced in females, but in males inhibin B is the major circulating inhibin. Both inhibins
suppress FSH secretion from the pituitary. During the menstrual cycle and early pregnancy,
inhibin A is produced by the CL. At the onset of menstruation during the early follicular phase,
very low levels of inhibin A are detected. Levels of inhibin A increase dramatically in the late
follicular phase and peaks in mid-luteal phase. The primary role of inhibin B appears to be in the
regulation of folliculogenesis via a negative feedback on the production of FSH. Levels of inhibin
B increase dramatically during folliculogenesis and are maximized just prior to ovulation.
AMH is produced by the Sertoli cells of the testis in the male and exclusively by ovarian
granulosa cells of preantral follicles in the adult female. During embryonic development in males,
secretion of AMH from testicular Sertoli cells is essential for the regression of the Müllerian
ducts, and thus the normal development of the male reproductive tract. The Müllerian ducts are
the primordium for the uterus, Fallopian tubes and upper vagina in the female. In the male,
secretion of AMH by the Sertoli cells commences during embryogenesis and continues
throughout life. Levels drop following puberty, decreasing slowly to a relatively low post-puberty
value. In the female, serum AMH is undetectable until the onset of puberty. AMH is produced in
a wide range of follicles from primary to early antral stages of folliculogenesis. The role of AMH
is to modulate primordial follicle recruitment and to inhibit cyclic follicle recruitment for
folliculogenesis, primarily by inhibiting the action of FSH on follicle growth and selection. AMH
levels are maintained at relatively low levels until menopause, at which time AMH progressively
decreases again to undetectable levels.
 Go to:

Ovarian Reserve and Physical Testing

Ovarian reserve (OR) declines during the aging process

Although a decline in OR accompanies chronological aging, acceleration in this process appears
to occur in a subset of pre-menopausal women. This is evidenced by suboptimal responses to
ovarian stimulation attempts, as seen in a proportion of younger women undergoing treatments
for infertility (de Boer et al. 2002; de Boer et al. 2003) and by the recent recognition that this
subset of women may be destined for transition into menopause at a younger age (Lawson et al.
2003).
The determination of both the quantity and quality of the follicular pool may allow the prediction
of women who may under-respond or over-respond to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation
protocols in ART programs (Bukulmez and Arici, 2004; Chang et al. 1998; Frattarelli et al.
2003; Bancsi et al. 2002; Vladimirov et al. 2005).

Physical tools used to assess OR

Ultrasonography (US) may be a useful tool in evaluating current ovarian function. During the
early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, the measurement of the ovarian volume (Lass et al.
1997), the mean ovarian diameter (MOD) (Frattarelli et al. 2000), the antral follicle count (AFC)
(Ruess et al. 1996), and the ovarian stromal blood flow with color Doppler (Engmann et al.
1999; Zaidi et al. 1996) are all physical evaluation techniques for ovarian reserve prediction.
Ovarian volume and AFC values can be useful indicators of menopausal status (Flaws et al.
2001). Erdem et al. suggest that transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) rather than hormonal
parameters is the preferred method for OR determination, as TVS assessment of ovarian volume
and the AFC confer a stronger correlation with chronological aging than Day 3 FSH level indices
and aging (Erdem et al. 2003).
The use of sonographic methods are somewhat limited, however, as they cannot predict future
fertility. Rather, US can only predict current fertility or the ovarian response to IVF treatment.
Until the very late stages of reproductive aging, most sonographic cycle characteristics in
populations with proven fertility remain “normal” (te Velde and Pearson, 2002). Only at a mean
age of approximately 46 to 48 years do normal menstrual cycle characteristics tend to disappear
(te Velde and Pearson, 2002; Giacobbe et al. 2004).
In younger women, sonographic methods may be only a fertility snapshot during one menstrual
cycle, as cycle-to-cycle consistency of both the AFC and ovarian volume have been demonstrated
to be significantly variable in younger sub-fertile women, with more variation observed in the
AFC of younger infertile patients (Elter et al. 2005). Hence, a low AFC in a young, sub-fertile
ovulatory woman should be interpreted cautiously, as a low AFC may not reflect poor ovarian
reserve.

Ovarian volume measurements

The ovarian volume in terms of total ovarian volume, volume of the smallest ovary and mean
ovarian volume, measured by TVS, were reported to correlate with response to controlled ovarian
hyperstimulation (Lass et al. 1997; Flaws et al. 2001; Sharara and McClamrock, 1999; Syrop et
al. 1999). In women where either ovary is small (less than three cm3), the IVF cancellation rate
was higher (Sharara and McClamrock, 1999). Single ovarian dimensions were shown to be a
reliable predictor of declining OR status in pre-menopausal infertile women (Bowen et al. 2007)
and in ovarian responsiveness during ART cycles (Frattarelli et al. 2000; Frattarelli et al. 2002).
The magnitude of this association was most robust for the ovarian width measurement (Bowen et
al. 2007).
Some studies detected a significant negative correlation between age of infertile women and
ovarian volume by two-dimensional US (Syrop et al. 1999) and by three-dimensional US
(Kupesic et al. 2003); other studies could not demonstrate such a correlation (Sharara and
McClamrock, 1999; Syrop et al. 1995). In fact, in a family planning clinic population of healthy
women aged 14–45 years, ovarian volume was shown not to be related to age (Christensen et al.
1997). Additional studies have demonstrated that a progressive decrease in ovarian volume
correlated to aging is more discernable during post-menopause and not during the reproductive
age, suggesting that ovarian volume should not be utilized as a stand-alone OR test (Tepper et al.
1995; Ng, 2003 #80).

Antral follicle count measurements

The antral follicle count (AFC) is defined as the number of follicles smaller than 10 mm in
diameter detected by TVS in the early follicular phase. The AFC has been shown to be a
predictor of the number of oocytes retrieved in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols
(Tomas et al. 1997), the cancellation rates in IVF (Frattarelli et al. 2000; Tomas et al. 1997), and
for predicting pregnancy loss in IVF pregnancies (Elter et al. 2005). The AFC has also been show
to be a predictor of the number of immature oocytes retrieved for in vitro maturation (IVM) (Tan
et al. 2002). There is no significant difference between right-sided and left-sided antral follicle
counts within the same individual (Chow et al. 2004). The AFC was shown to be a superior, or at
least an equivalent, prediction tool for poor IVF response (Hendriks et al. 2007; Kwee et al.
2007) or hyper IVF response (Kwee et al. 2007) when compared to ovarian volume measurement
and complex endocrine challenge tests. Furthermore, the AFC has been established to be equally
as useful as AMH in OR status determination and/or ovarian responsiveness (Muttukrishna et al.
2005; Nardo et al. 2007).

Reproducibility/reliability of the AFC measurement

The relationship between reproductive age and AFC and the reproducibility of AFC in regularly
cycling women has been investigated by a number of different groups. Healthy female volunteers
with proven, normal fertility and regular menstrual cycles were studied; and out of all parameters
tested, the number of antral follicles has the closest association with chronological age (Scheffer
et al. 2003). Chinese women with proven fertility were evaluated; and among many ovarian
reserve tests, only the AFC demonstrated the best correlation with women’s age (Ng et al. 2003).
Women undergoing their first IVF cycle were evaluated with a battery of tests to compare several
basal ovarian reserve markers (Bancsi et al. 2002). Measurements were performed to determine
the number of antral follicles, total ovarian volume, basal FSH, E2, and Inhibin B on cycle day 3.
The AFC was the best single predictor for poor ovarian response (Bancsi et al. 2002). Further
work by the same group demonstrated that a single AFC is a good predictor of poor ovarian
response in IVF, and that the clinical relevance of a second AFC during a subsequent cycle is of
limited value (Bancsi et al. 2004).
In another study, the AFC was obtained in regularly cycling fertile women and was evaluated by
cohort comparison for predicted distribution of age at reproductive events, such as the ages at last
childbirth and at menopause (Broekmans et al. 2004). Distribution of the observed ages at last
childbirth and ages at menopause were obtained from the BALSAC (Bouchard et al. 1989)
demographic database and the Prospect-EPIC (Riboli et al. 2002) study, respectively. This data
comparison demonstrated that the link between declining AFCs and reproductively significant
events like loss of natural fertility and menopause is strengthened by the high degree of similarity
among the predicted and observed age distributions (Broekmans et al. 2004). The study authors
do point out, however, that there may be marginal clinical utility, except in the case of women
who have low AFCs for their age.
In a new and rather intriguing study, a number of ovarian reserve tests were performed, such as
AFC and an endocrine test panel, on sub-fertile, ovulatory patients (Haadsma et al. 2007). The
study demonstrated that the number of pre-antral or small antral follicles (2–6 mm) declined with
age and the number of larger follicles (7–10 mm) remained constant, suggesting that the number
of small AFCs represents the functional OR (Haadsma et al. 2007).
The performance of the AFC for predicting failure to achieve pregnancy is poor (Bancsi et al.
2002; Ng et al. 2003; Hendriks et al. 2005). While the AFC determines the number of oocytes, a
clinically relevant outcome, such a pregnancy or live birth, is dependent on oocyte quality as well
as quantity.
The ovarian volume, AFC, vascularization index, flow index, and vascularization-flow index
were determined by 3-D Power Doppler Angiography (PDA) indices, and all were shown to have
excellent intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility (Merce et al. 2005). Further, the ovary
functional stage (basal after pituitary suppression or stimulated after gonadotropin treatment)
does not modify the reliability of any of these measurements (Merce et al. 2005). Thus, 3-D US
and PDA offer the advantage of evaluating all parameters in a single US examination, thereby
improving the clinical evaluation of ovarian parameters. In addition, ovarian images captured by
3-D sonography can be stored and evaluated later, thereby uncoupling the need to analyze the
data during ovarian examination (Scheffer et al. 2002).

Biomarkers: endocrine testing

Biomarkers are desirable for assessing fertility because of the minimal invasiveness of blood
collection in comparison to other procedures, reflection of internal function, speed of analysis and
reasonable cost. The “magic bullet” biomarker for ovarian reserve has yet to be clearly defined,
yet. However many biomarkers do provide significant insight as to ovarian reserve status. With
the implementation of better testing methods and discovery of new biomarkers more options will
be available. There are a few newly recognized biomarkers that look extremely promising,
including AMH and inhibin-B.
There are both indirect and direct measures of ovarian reserve. Indirect measures include day 3
follicular stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and the FSH:LH ratios. These biomarkers are
considered indirect measures, as they require stimulation from either a feedback inhibition or a
stimulation loop. Essentially these biomarkers rely on the production of other hormones. Inhibin
B and AMH are examples of direct measures of ovarian reserve as these hormones are produced
during specific stages of follicular development, rather than by follicular stimulation. These two
biomarkers have recently been receiving additional visibility with the development of more
robust and reliable laboratory methods. This makes these biomarker assays additionally appealing
and further reproducible for laboratories. In addition to indirect and direct measures, there are a
couple of stimulation tests that have been developed and are frequently used to ascertain or
estimate ovarian reserve. These stimulation tests require drug exposure, baseline measurements,
and follow-up measurements of the biomarkers, such as FSH.
Go to:

Indirect Measures

Day 3 FSH
Day 3 FSH is believed to represent the “basal” level or non-suppressed level of FSH through
ovarian feedback to the pituitary (Barnhart and Osheroff, 1998). Day 3 FSH has been credited
with being a biomarker for ovarian reserve since the late 1980s, as it provides a glimpse of how
well the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis is functioning (Barnhart and Osheroff, 1998). As
women and their follicles age, the amount of FSH secreted increases due to the lack of
responsiveness of the ovary (Perloe et al. 2000). As day 3 FSH levels climb, it is indicative of a
diminished ovarian reserve. In fact, fluctuation between cycles of day 3 FSH levels is important
to note as it may be reflective of the decline in ovarian reserve (Perloe et al. 2000).
Monitoring day 3 FSH levels may not be the best option for monitoring ovarian reserve, but it is
the most widely recognized OR biomarker and it does provide some insight. Testing is available
on multiple automated platforms and thus is relatively fast, inexpensive, and reproducible. FSH is
proven to increase with the age of follicles and that increase is more dramatic and earlier than that
of LH (Perloe et al. 2000). Historically, FSH has been the biomarker of choice; it is well studied,
documented, and validated which provides a level of comfort to physicians (Sharara et al. 1998).
It is important to recognize some of the issues with using FSH as a biomarker for OR testing.
Between cycle fluctuation in day 3 FSH levels make OR estimation difficult (Perloe et al. 2000).
Since lower day 3 FSH levels represent satisfactory ovarian reserve and higher levels represent
declining OR, a single day 3 FSH measurement may not be very accurate. It may be better to
look at subsequent cycle day 3 FSH levels (Perloe et al. 2000). Additionally, an increased day 3
FSH level is considered a late indicator of marked decreased fertility potential (Sharara et al.
1998). It may be better to look for an early indicator of declining OR and/or decreased fertility
potential.

Estradiol
Day 3 estradiol has been assessed for OR testing as well, but is not as extensively relied upon.
Estradiol is a product of the granulosa cells and can be considered a reflection of follicular
activity. As with FSH, estradiol testing is also available on multiple automated platforms and thus
is relatively fast, inexpensive and reproducible. However, it is never used alone as a biomarker
for OR.
An increased estradiol level early in the menstrual cycle suggests that follicular development is in
an advanced stage that is inappropriate for day 3 (Perloe et al. 2000). However, estradiol levels
can be increased for two very different reasons. Estradiol levels can become elevated due to the
occurrence of rapid folliculogenesis. Alternatively, an increased estradiol level can be due to an
enhanced OR, such as in women afflicted with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), where a
small amount of estradiol is being produced by a large number of antral follicles (Toner, 2003).

FSH:LH ratio
The literature gives some honorable mention to looking at the ratio of measured FSH to LH,
which is most frequently determined on day 3 of the cycle. An elevated or exaggerated FSH:LH
ratio can be a signal of diminished OR (Toner, 2003). By looking at the ratio an elevation can be
detected, even with an FSH level that appears to be within the reference interval (Toner, 2003).
Since FSH begins rising before LH as OR diminishes, using two measurements may be more
reliable and will catch a small increase in FSH faster (Perloe et al. 2000). The FSH:LH ratio is an
early indicator of ovarian ageing and could be the first of diminished OR (Mukherjee et al. 1996).
Go to:

Direct Measures

Inhibin B
Inhibin B is a peptide hormone that is a member of the transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)
superfamily (Perloe et al. 2000). It is produced from small antral follicles and selectively inhibits
FSH release (Perloe et al. 2000; Broekmans et al. 1998). Inhibin B levels during the early
follicular phase decrease prior to the increase in FSH levels (Toner, 2003). As the follicle cohort
size is decreased, which is expected as women age, a decrease in inhibin B levels will be
observed (Broekmans et al. 1998).
Unfortunately, documentation in the literature is minimal and also variable. Inhibin B levels do
hold promise, but need more study and validation (Sharara et al. 1998). This could be attributed
to a variation between assays used and there may be concerns about cycle-to-cycle variability
(Sharara et al. 1998). One study of interest found inhibin B to have the best positive association
with the number of oocytes collected from patients undergoing gonadotropin ovarian stimulation
tests to assess ovarian reserve (Muttukrishna et al. 2005). This study looked at 108 women and
the change in inhibin B between days 3 and 4, as well as other biomarkers. Currently, there is
only one commercially available assay for inhibin B. Unfortunately, it is still being optimized and
is currently available for research use only.

AMH
Like inhibin B, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) is also a member of the TGF-β superfamily. AMH
is produced by the granulosa cells of pre-antral and small antral follicles. Follicular growth is
modulated by AMH, which inhibits recruitment of follicles from the primordial pool by
modifying the FSH sensitivity of those follicles (La Marca et al. 2006; Visser et al. 2006). AMH
is considered to be reflective of the non-FSH dependant follicular growth. As a follicle matures,
AMH production disappears allowing the follicle to complete the development process during the
FSH-dependant stages of growth (Visser et al. 2006). There is a linear decline of AMH levels
over time (Visser et al. 2006; La Marca and Volpe, 2006). This decline is attributed to a
decreasing number of follicles in the primordial pool.
AMH will in all probability become the hormone of choice for assessing OR. It has been
suggested that AMH is the single best predictor of poor response for ART (Muttukrishna et al.
2005). The fact that AMH is secreted without dependence on other hormones, particularly the
gonadotropins, and that AMH is expressed at a constant level, independent of cycle day make
AMH very attractive as a direct measurement of OR (La Marca et al. 2006; Feyereisen et al.
2006; Hehenkamp et al. 2006; La Marca et al. 2007). The freedom that AMH testing offers both
clinicians and patients by allowing collections to be performed on any day during the menstrual
cycle is a vast logistical advantage over other biomarkers.
One recent study demonstrated not only a strong relationship between AMH and AFC, but that
this relationship was stronger than the other typical biomarkers relationships with AFC
(Feyereisen et al. 2006). In addition to being a good biomarker for the quantity of follicles,
another study illustrated that AMH is also suggestive of the quality of the remaining oocytes
(Ebner et al. 2006). Women with normal reproductive performance were examined twice within
an average of four years and assessed the AFC and various endocrine markers, demonstrating that
serum AMH, followed by the AFC showed the most consistent correlation to the age-related
decline of reproductive capacity (van Rooij et al. 2005).
Additional research is needed to recognize all the roles AMH plays. It will be important to
recognize the mechanisms that control production of AMH within the granulosa cells (Feyereisen
et al. 2006). To better understand if AMH is truly reflective of quality of the follicles, the fate of
oocytes and embryos from individual follicles will need to be assessed (Feyereisen et al. 2006).

Clomiphene citrate challenge test

It is thought by some that provocative or stimulation tests for ovarian reserve testing are more
sensitive indicators than basal testing alone (Toner, 2003). The Clomiphene Citrate Challenge
Test (CCCT) is perhaps the most widely used of the stimulation tests for ovarian reserve. The
underlying assumption for this test to work is that in a woman with adequate ovarian reserve,
there is a healthy developing follicle cohort that should be able to produce enough inhibin and
estradiol to suppress FSH and resist the clomiphene citrate stress on the hypothalamus-pituitary-
gonadal axis (Perloe et al. 2000).
The CCCT requires a baseline measurement of FSH on day 3 of the cycle, administration of 100
mg of clomiphene citrate daily on cycle days 5 through 9 and an additional measurement of FSH
on cycle day 10. If the FSH determination on day 10 is high, this result is suggestive of a
diminished OR. In fact, some users of the CCCT look at both day 3 and day 10 FSH levels
independently and others additively. If either or both measurements are high, these results are
also indicative of a diminished OR (Perloe et al. 2000; Toner, 2003; Hendriks et al. 2005). When
applied in an ART setting, the CCCT has been proven to be a better predictor of OR than day 3
FSH measurement alone (Perloe et al. 2000).
There is additional burden placed upon the patient when undergoing a CCCT. The two visits and
administration of the drug for 5 days require patient compliance that can affect the accuracy of
the CCCT (Hendriks et al. 2005). These patients do have a vested interest, so compliance may be
higher than in other situations; however it is still an unknown variable that must be considered in
evaluating the use of the test. In addition, there may be no need to perform the CCCT if there is
an elevated day 3 FSH measured (Broekmans et al. 1998).

GAST
The Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Agonist Test (GAST) is another stimulation test that is
fairly well documented in the literature. It evaluates the change in estradiol levels on cycle days 2
and 3 following a subcutaneous administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (1
mg leuprolide acetate) (Perloe et al. 2000). The dose of the agonist causes a massive, temporary
release of FSH and LH from the pituitary, which in turn increases estradiol production within a
24-hour timeframe (Broekmans et al. 1998). A robust increase or flare of estradiol in response to
this stimulation is reflective of recruitable follicles in the early follicular phase which is in turn
representative of OR (Perloe et al. 2000; Broekmans et al. 1998).
Go to:

Summary
a. All tests have some benefits. There will always be a combination of markers used to get
the best answer. The best candidate for a single biomarker is AMH.
b. We could recommend the need of a reference interval study using a “normal” population
in addition to an infertile population. Reference intervals for each population should be
stratified by age and body mass index and for ART patients, further stratified by
gonadotropin response, i.e. poor versus good responder.
c. Bottom line: AMH is the focus for the future of ovarian reserve assessment. Further
clinical studies are needed, but today, AMH appears to be representative of the hands of
the biological clock that we have been hearing tick for years.
Figure 1
Schematic of the reproductive endocrinology in the female. Please see notations within the Figure for
detailed description of the relationships between the hormones.

Table 1
Comparison of the different physical tools to assess ovarian reserve.

Physical Advantages Disadvantages

measurement tool

Ovarian volume Confirms menopausal status reliable Significant changes in ovarian volume not
predictor of declining OR status discernable during end of reproductive years
independent of advancing age Highly variable in younger infertile patients
 Physical Advantages Disadvantages
measurement tool

Antral follicle count Consistent correlation to the age-related Performance for predicting failure to achieve
decline of reproductive capacity pregnancy is poor
There is no significant difference Highly variable in younger infertile patients
between right-sided and left-sided antral AMH may be a better/equivalent predictor of
follicle counts within the same individual age-related decline of reproductive capacity
The AFC is a useful prediction tool for
poor IVF response or hyper IVF response

Ovarian stromal Results are highly predictive of ovarian Results do not always correlate with advancing
blood flow velocity responsiveness age

Go to:

References

 Baird DT, Collins J, Egozcue J, Evers LH, Gianaroli L, Leridon H, Sunde A, Templeton A,
Van Steirteghem A, Cohen J, et al. Fertility and ageing. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2005;11:261–
76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 de Boer EJ, den Tonkelaar I, te Velde ER, Burger CW, Klip H, van Leeuwen FE. A low
number of retrieved oocytes at in vitro fertilization treatment is predictive of early
menopause. . Fertil. Steril. 2002;77:978–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 de Boer EJ, den Tonkelaar I, te Velde ER, Burger CW, van Leeuwen FE. Increased risk of
early menopausal transition and natural menopause after poor response at first IVF treatment.
. Hum. Reprod. 2003;18:1544–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Lawson R, El-Toukhy T, Kassab A, Taylor A, Braude P, Parsons J, Seed P. Poor response to
ovulation induction is a stronger predictor of early menopause than elevated basal FSH: a life
table analysis. . Hum. Reprod. 2003;18:527–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Bukulmez O, Arici A. Assessment of ovarian reserve. . Curr. Opin. Obstet.
Gynecol. 2004;16:231–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Chang MY, Chiang CH, Hsieh TT, Soong YK, Hsu KH. Use of the antral follicle count to
predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. . Fertil. Steril. 1998;69:505–
10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT, Segars JH. A prospective assessment of the predictive
value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. . Fertil. Steril. 2003;80:350–
5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Predictors
of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers
of ovarian reserve. . Fertil. Steril. 2002;77:328–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Vladimirov IK, Tacheva DM, Kalinov KB, Ivanova AV, Blagoeva VD. Prognostic value of
some ovarian reserve tests in poor responders. . Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2005;272:74–
9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Lass A, Skull J, McVeigh E, Margara R, Winston RM. Measurement of ovarian volume by
transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotrophin
for in-vitro fertilization can predict poor response. . Hum. Reprod. 1997;12:294–
7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Frattarelli JL, Lauria-Costab DF, Miller BT, Bergh PA, Scott RT. Basal antral follicle number
and mean ovarian diameter predict cycle cancellation and ovarian responsiveness in assisted
reproductive technology cycles. . Fertil. Steril. 2000;74:512–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Ruess ML, Kline J, Santos R, Levin B, Timor-Tritsch I. Age and the ovarian follicle pool
assessed with transvaginal ultrasonography. . Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996;174:624–
7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Engmann L, Sladkevicius P, Agrawal R, Bekir JS, Campbell S, Tan SL. Value of ovarian
stromal blood flow velocity measurement after pituitary suppression in the prediction of
ovarian responsiveness and outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment. . Fertil.
Steril. 1999;71:22–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Zaidi J, Barber J, Kyei-Mensah A, Bekir J, Campbell S, Tan SL. Relationship of ovarian
stromal blood flow at the baseline ultrasound scan to subsequent follicular response in an in
vitro fertilization program. . Obstet. Gynecol. 1996;88:779–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Flaws JA, Langenberg P, Babus JK, Hirshfield AN, Sharara FI. Ovarian volume and antral
follicle counts as indicators of menopausal status. Menopause. 2001;8:175–
80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Erdem M, Erdem A, Biberoglu K, Arslan M. Age-related changes in ovarian volume, antral
follicle counts and basal follicle stimulating hormone levels: comparison between fertile and
infertile women. . Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2003;17:199–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 te Velde ER, Pearson PL. The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum. Reprod.
Update. 2002;8:141–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Giacobbe M, Mendes Pinto-Neto A, Simoes Costa-Paiva LH, Martinez EZ. The usefulness of
ovarian volume, antral follicle count and age as predictors of menopausal
status. Climacteric. 2004;7:255–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Elter K, Sismanoglu A, Durmusoglu F. Intercycle variabilities of basal antral follicle count
and ovarian volume in subfertile women and their relationship to reproductive aging: a
prospective study. . Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2005;20:137–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Sharara FI, McClamrock HD. The effect of aging on ovarian volume measurements in
infertile women. . Obstet. Gynecol. 1999;94:57–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Syrop CH, Dawson JD, Husman KJ, Sparks AE, Van Voorhis BJ. Ovarian volume may
predict assisted reproductive outcomes better than follicle stimulating hormone concentration
on day 3. . Hum. Reprod. 1999;14:1752–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Bowen S, Norian J, Santoro N, Pal L. Simple tools for assessment of ovarian reserve (OR.):
individual ovarian dimensions are reliable predictors of OR. . Fertil. Steril. 2007;88:390–
5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT. A prospective novel method of determining ovarian size
during in vitro fertilization cycles. . J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2002;19:39–41. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Bjelos D, Vujisic S. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic ovarian
measurements and in vitro fertilization outcome are related to age. . Fertil.
Steril. 2003;79:190–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Syrop CH, Willhoite A, Van Voorhis BJ. Ovarian volume: a novel outcome predictor for
assisted reproduction. . Fertil. Steril. 1995;64:1167–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Christensen JT, Boldsen J, Westergaard JG. Ovarian volume in gynecologically healthy
women using no contraception, or using IUD or oral contraception. Acta. Obstet. Gynecol.
Scand. 1997;76:784–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Tepper R, Zalel Y, Markov S, Cohen I, Beyth Y. Ovarian volume in postmenopausal
women—suggestions to an ovarian size nomogram for menopausal age. Acta. Obstet.
Gynecol. Scand. 1995;74:208–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Tomas C, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Martikainen H. Pretreatment transvaginal ultrasound
examination predicts ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophins in in-vitro fertilization.
. Hum. Reprod. 1997;12:220–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Elter K, Kavak ZN, Gokaslan H, Pekin T. Antral follicle assessment after down-regulation
may be a useful tool for predicting pregnancy loss in in vitro fertilization pregnancies.
. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2005;21:33–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Tan SL, Child TJ, Gulekli B. In vitro maturation and fertilization of oocytes from
unstimulated ovaries: predicting the number of immature oocytes retrieved by early follicular
phase ultrasonography. . Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002;186:684–9. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]
 Chow GE, Criniti AR, Soules MR. Antral follicle count and serum follicle-stimulating
hormone levels to assess functional ovarian age. . Obstet. Gynecol. 2004;104:801–
4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hendriks DJ, Kwee J, Mol BW, te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Ultrasonography as a tool for
the prediction of outcome in IVF patients: a comparative meta-analysis of ovarian volume
and antral follicle count. . Fertil. Steril. 2007;87:764–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Kwee J, Elting ME, Schats R, McDonnell J, Lambalk CB. Ovarian volume and antral follicle
count for the prediction of low and hyper responders with in vitro fertilization. . Reprod. Biol.
Endocrinol. 2007;5:9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM, Serhal P. Antral follicle
count, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted
reproductive technology? BJOG. 2005;112:1384–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Nardo LG, Christodoulou D, Gould D, Roberts SA, Fitzgerald CT, Laing I. Anti-Mullerian
hormone levels and antral follicle count in women enrolled in in vitro fertilization cycles:
Relationship to lifestyle factors, chronological age and reproductive history. Gynecol
Endocrinol. 2007:1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Blankenstein M, Fauser BC, teJong FH, teVelde
ER. The number of antral follicles in normal women with proven fertility is the best reflection
of reproductive age. . Hum. Reprod. 2003;18:700–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Ng EH, Yeung WS, Fong DY, Ho PC. Effects of age on hormonal and ultrasound markers of
ovarian reserve in Chinese women with proven fertility. . Hum. Reprod. 2003;18:2169–
74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Impact of repeated antral
follicle counts on the prediction of poor ovarian response in women undergoing in vitro
fertilization. . Fertil. Steril. 2004;81:35–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Broekmans FJ, Faddy MJ, Scheffer G, te Velde ER. Antral follicle counts are related to age at
natural fertility loss and age at menopause. Menopause. 2004;11:607–14. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]
 Bouchard G, Roy R, Casgrain B, Hubert M. Population files and database management: the
BALSAC database and the INGRES/INGRID system. . Hist. Mes. 1989;4:39–
57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N, Ferrari P, Norat T, Fahey M, Charrondiere UR, Hemon B,
Casagrande C, Vignat J, et al. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
(EPIC): study populations and data collection. . Public Health Nutr. 2002;5:1113–
24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Haadsma ML, Bukman A, Groen H, Roeloffzen EM, Groenewoud ER, Heineman MJ, Hoek
A. The number of small antral follicles (2–6 mm) determines the outcome of endocrine
ovarian reserve tests in a subfertile population. . Hum. Reprod. 2007;22:1925–
31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Bancsi LF, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Antral follicle count in the
prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis
and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level. . Fertil. Steril. 2005;83:291–
301. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Merce LT, Gomez B, Engels V, Bau S, Bajo JM. Intraob-server and interobserver
reproducibility of ovarian volume, antral follicle count, and vascularity indices obtained with
transvaginal 3-dimensional ultrasonography, power Doppler angiography, and the virtual
organ computer-aided analysis imaging program. . J. Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:1279–
87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Habbema JD, Looman CW, Te Velde ER.
Quantitative transvaginal two- and three-dimensional sonography of the ovaries:
reproducibility of antral follicle counts. . Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2002;20:270–
5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Barnhart K, Osheroff J. Follicle stimulating hormone as a predictor of fertility. . Curr. Opin.
Obstet. Gynecol. 1998;10:227–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Perloe M, Levy DP, Sills ES. Strategies for ascertaining ovarian reserve among women
suspected of subfertility. . Int. J. Fertil. Womens Med. 2000;45:215–24. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]
 Sharara FI, Scott RT, Seifer DB. The detection of diminished ovarian reserve in infertile
women. . Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1998;179:804–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Toner JP. Ovarian reserve, female age and the chance for successful pregnancy. . Minerva
Ginecol. 2003;55:399–406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Mukherjee T, Copperman AB, Lapinski R, Sandler B, Bustillo M, Grunfeld L. An elevated
day three follicle-stimulating hormone:luteinizing hormone ratio (FSH:LH) in the presence of
a normal day 3 FSH predicts a poor response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. . Fertil.
Steril. 1996;65:588–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, Bancsi LF, Dorland M, Blankenstein MA, te Velde ER. Ovarian
reserve tests in infertility practice and normal fertile women. Maturitas. 1998;30:205–
14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, Volpe A. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout
the human menstrual cycle. . Hum. Reprod. 2006;21:3103–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Visser JA, de Jong FH, Laven JS, Themmen AP. Anti-Mullerian hormone: a new marker for
ovarian function. Reproduction. 2006;131:1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 La Marca A, Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) in female reproduction: is
measurement of circulating AMH a useful tool. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf) 2006;64:603–
10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Feyereisen E, Mendez Lozano DH, Taieb J, Hesters L, Frydman R, Fanchin R. Anti-
Mullerian hormone: clinical insights into a promising biomarker of ovarian follicular
status. Reprod. Biomed Online. 2006;12:695–703. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hehenkamp WJ, Looman CW, Themmen AP, de Jong FH, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ.
Anti-Mullerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial
fluctuation. . J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2006;91:4057–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian
hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response
in assisted reproductive technology. . Hum. Reprod. 2007;22:766–71. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]
 Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G. Basal level of
anti-Mullerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. . Hum.
Reprod. 2006;21:2022–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, de Jong FH, Fauser
BJ, Themmen AP, te Velde ER. Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the
reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study.
. Fertil. Steril. 2005;83:979–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hendriks DJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, de Jong FH, Looman CW, Te Velde ER. Repeated
clomiphene citrate challenge testing in the prediction of outcome in IVF: a comparison with
basal markers for ovarian reserve. . Hum. Reprod. 2005;20:163–9. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]