Advertisement

Anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictors for embryo/oocyte cryopreservation cycle outcomes in breast cancer patients stimulated with letrozole and follicle stimulating hormone

  • Sanghoon Lee
  • Sinan Ozkavukcu
  • Elke Heytens
  • Fred Moy
  • Rose M. Alappat
  • Kutluk Oktay
Fertility Preservation

Abstract

Purpose

To predict embryo/oocyte cryopreservation cycle (ECC) outcomes in breast cancer patients stimulated with letrozole and follicle stimulating hormone for fertility preservation based on observed anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels and antral follicle counts (AFC).

Methods

The correlation between AMH and AFC and ECC outcomes were analyzed retrospectively on forty one women with breast cancer before adjuvant treatment.

Results

AMH and AFC had a stronger correlation with the total number of oocytes and the number of mature oocytes than age, FSH, and inhibin B. Subjects were evaluated by the number of mature oocytes retrieved to create cutoff points of AMH level, which identified 1.2 ng/mL as a potential value. Seven of 18 patients with AMH levels ≤1.2 ng/mL had low response versus none of 23 with >1.2 ng/mL, (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

AMH is the most reliable serum marker of ECC outcomes, together with AFC as a biophysical marker, in breast cancer patients. Low response is highly likely when the AMH level is ≤1.2 ng/mL.

Keywords

Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) Letrozole Breast cancer Fertility preservation Cryopreservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is partially supported by NIH HD 053112.

References

  1. 1.
    Weir HK, Thun MJ, Hankey BF, Ries LA, Howe HL, Wingo PA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1276–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smigal C, Jemal A, Ward E, Cokkinides V, Smith R, Howe HL, et al. Trends in breast cancer by race and ethnicity: update 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:168–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oktay KH, Yih M. Preliminary experience with orthotopic and heterotopic transplantation of ovarian cortical strips. Semin Reprod Med. 2002;20:63–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, Ward E, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53:5–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganz P, Hahn E. Implementing a survivorship care plan for patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:759–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Cancer Society: Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2005–2006. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2005BrFacspdf2005.pdf
  7. 7.
    Sonmezer M, Oktay K. Fertility preservation in young women undergoing breast cancer therapy. Oncologist. 2006;11(5):422–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Azim AA, Costantini-Ferrando M, Oktay K. Safety of fertility preservation by ovarian stimulation with letrozole and gonadotropins in patients with breast cancer: a prospective controlled study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(16):2630–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oktay K, Kim JY, Barad D, Babayev SN. Association of BRCA1 mutations with occult primary ovarian insufficiency: a possible explanation for the link between infertility and breast/ovarian cancer risks. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(2):240–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lohrisch C, Paltiel C, Gelmon K, Speers C, Taylor S, Barnett J, et al. Impact on survival time from definitive surgery to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4888–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cold S, During M, Ewertz M, Knoop A, Moller S. Does timing of adjuvant chemotherapy influence the prognosis after early breast cancer? Results of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Br J Cancer. 2005;93:627–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee MM, Donahoe PK, Hasegawa T, Silverman B, Crist GB, Best S, et al. Mullerian inhibiting substance in humans: normal levels from infancy to adulthood. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;81:571–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seifer DB, MacLaughlin DT, Christian BP, Feng B, Shelden RM. Early follicular serum mullerian-inhibiting substance levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:468–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Rooij IA, de Jong E, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. High follicle-stimulating hormone levels should not necessarily lead to the exclusion of subfertile patients from treatment. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1478–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazit N, Aksoy E, Bahceci M. Comparison of agonistic flare-up-protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(5):868–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    La Marca A, Broekmans FJ, Volpe A, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. ESHRE Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology—AMH Round Table: Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know? Hum Reprod. 2009;24(9):2264–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, de Jong FH, et al. Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(4):979–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2):113–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N. Prospective, comparative analysis of anti-mullerian hormone, inhibin B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):855–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-mullerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):602–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Themmen A, de Jong F, Lambalk C. Evaluation of anti-mullerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:737–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G. Basal level of anti-Mullerian hormone is associated with oocytes quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2022–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hazout A, Bouchard P, Seifer DB, Aussage P, Junca AM, Cohen-Bacrie P. Serum antimullerian hormone/mullerian-inhibiting substance appears to be a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome than follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:1323–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I, Trimarchi JR, Lambert-Messerlian G, Seifer DB, et al. Mullerian inhibiting substance levels at the time of HCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:159–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cupisti S, Dittrich R, Mueller A, Strick R, Stiegler E, Binder H, et al. Correlations between anti-Mullerian hormone, inhibin B, and activin A in follicular fluid in IVF/ICSI patients for assessing the maturation and developmental potential of oocytes. Eur J Med Res. 2007;12:604–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:867–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Couet ML, Gervereau O, Ract V, Royere D. Serum antimullerian hormone is not predictive of oocytes quality in vitro fertilization. Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2009;70(4):230–4.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freeman EW, Gracia CR, Sammel MD, Lin H, Lim LC, Strauss 3rd JF. Association of anti-mullerian hormone levels with obesity in late reproductive-age women. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):101–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:705–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanghoon Lee
    • 1
  • Sinan Ozkavukcu
    • 1
  • Elke Heytens
    • 1
  • Fred Moy
    • 2
  • Rose M. Alappat
    • 1
  • Kutluk Oktay
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Fertility Preservation and Laboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyNew York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA
  2. 2.Biometrics, Data Management and PK/PD Unit, Graduate School of Basic Medical Sciences, Department of PathologyNew York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA

Personalised recommendations