Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mean Ovarian Diameter (MOD) as a Predictor of Poor Ovarian Response

  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the predictive value of mean ovarian diameter of ovarian response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), in outcome with normal FSH level in early follicular phase of menstrual cycle.

Methods: A prospective study established the prognostic value of the mean ovarian diameter of total 57 cases, including 17 patients undergoing IVF treatment with poor ovarian response and 40 patients (control group) with adequate ovarian response.

Results: The mean ovarian diameter (MOD) of patients in the cancelled group was significantly lower (19.23 ± 2.78) than in a comparable control group (24.67 ± 3.38) [p < 0.001]. The mean ovarian diameter was a good predictor of poor ovarian response—area under receiver operating characteristic curve—ROCAUC = 0.88. The best criterion value discriminating between cancelled cycle and punctured was ≤20.6 mm.

Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that the mean ovarian diameter provides good prognostic information in outcomes with poor ovarian response during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF. The test is easy to perform and it is a good informative resource.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scott RT: Evaluation and treatment of low responders. Semin Reprod Endocrinol 1996;14:317-337

    Google Scholar 

  2. Garcia JE, Jones JS, Acosta AA: Human menopausal gonadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin follicular maturation oocyte aspiration: Phase II. Fertil Steril 1983;39:174-179

    Google Scholar 

  3. Serafini P, Stone B, Kerin J: An alternative approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in "poor responders" with a gonadotrophin releasing hormone analog. Fertil Steril 1988;49:90-95

    Google Scholar 

  4. Karande V, Gleicher N: A rational approach to the management of low responders in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1744-1748

    Google Scholar 

  5. Land JA, Yarmolinskaya MI, Dumoulin JCM, Evers JL: High-dose human menopausal gonadotrophin stimulation in poor responders does not improve the in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1996;65:961-965

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, Martinez F, Ferrero S, Greco E: Controlled Comparison of ICSI and Laser-Assisted ICSI in Low Responders Patients. In ESHRE 18th Annual Meeting 2002;O-103.36

  7. Sharara FI, Scott RT Jr, Seifer D: The detection of diminished ovarian reserve in infertile women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:804-812

    Google Scholar 

  8. Toner JP, Philput GP, Jones JS, Muasher SJ: Basal follicle stimulation hormone levels is better predictor of in vitro fertilization performance than age. Fertil Steril 1991;55:784-791

    Google Scholar 

  9. Licciardi FL, Liu HC, Rosenwoks Z: Day 3 estradiol serum concentrations as prognosticators of ovarian stimulation response and pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1995;64:991-997

    Google Scholar 

  10. Farhi J, Homburg R, Ferber A, Orvieto R, Ben Rafael Z: Non response to ovarian stimulation in normogonadotrophic, normogonadal women: A clinical sign of impending onset of ovarian failure pre-empting the rise in basal follicle stimulating hormone levels. Hum Reprod 1997;12:241-243

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lass A, Silye R, Abrams D, Krausz T, Hovatta O, Margara R: Follicular density in ovarian biopsy of infertile women: A novel method to assess ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1028-1031

    Google Scholar 

  12. Seifer DB, Gardnier AC, Lambert-Messerlian G, Hogan JW, Blazar AS, Berk CA: Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril 1997;67:110-117

    Google Scholar 

  13. Navot D, Rosenwaks Z, Margalioth EJ: Prognostic assessment of fertility fecundity. Lancet 1987;ii:645-647

    Google Scholar 

  14. Winslow KL, Toner JP, Brzyski RG: The gonadotropin-realising hormone agonist stimulation test—a sensitive predictor of performance in the flare-up in vitro fertilization cycle. Fertil Steril 1991;56:711-717

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fanchin R, De Ziegler D, Olivennes F: Exogenous follicle stimulation hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT): A simple and reliable screening test for detections "poor responders" in in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1607-1611

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lass A, Skull J, McVeigh E, Margara R, Winston RML: 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;12:294-297

    Google Scholar 

  17. Frattarelli GL, Lauria-Costa DF, Miller BT, Bergh PA, Scott R: Basal antral follicle number and mean ovarian diameter predict cycle cancellation and ovarian responsiveness in assisted reproductive technology cycle. Fertil Steril 2000;74:512-517

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ruess ML, Kline J, Santos R, Levin B, Timor-Tritsh I: Age and ovarian follicle pool assessed with transvaginal ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:624-627

    Google Scholar 

  19. Engmann L, Sladkevicius P, Agarwal R, Bekir J, Campbell S, Tan SL: Value of ovarian stromal blood flow velocity measurement after pituitary suppression in the prediction of ovarian responsiveness and outcome in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 1999;71:22-29

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frattarelli GL, Levi AJ, Miller BT: A prospective novel method of determining ovarian size during in vitro fertilization cycles. Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19(1):39-41

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under reliever operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lass A, Skull J, McVeigh E: 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;12:294-297

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sharara FI, McClamrock HD: The effect of aging on ovarian volume measurements in infertile women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:57-60

    Google Scholar 

  24. Syrop CH, Willhoite A, Van Voorhis BJ: Ovarian volume: A novel outcome predictor for assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 1995;64:1167-1171

    Google Scholar 

  25. TOMAS C, Huttunen SN, Martikainen H: Pretreatment transvaginal ultrasound examination predicts ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophins in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997;12:220-223

    Google Scholar 

  26. Granberg S, Wikland M: A comparison between ultrasound and gynecologic examination for detection of enlarged ovaries in a group of women at risk of ovarian carcinoma. J Ultrasound Med 1988;7:59-63

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive medicine, Medical center “St. Pantailemon,”, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Iavor K. Vladimirov & Desislava M. Tacheva

  2. Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Krassimir B. Kalinov

Authors
  1. Iavor K. Vladimirov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Desislava M. Tacheva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Krassimir B. Kalinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iavor K. Vladimirov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vladimirov, I.K., Tacheva, D.M. & Kalinov, K.B. Mean Ovarian Diameter (MOD) as a Predictor of Poor Ovarian Response. J Assist Reprod Genet 21, 73–77 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JARG.0000027017.32027.df

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JARG.0000027017.32027.df

Search

Navigation