An online tool for predicting ovarian responses in unselected patients using dynamic inhibin B and basal antimüllerian hormone levels

Background Reliable predictive models for predicting excessive and poor ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is currently lacking. The dynamic (Δ) inhibin B, which refers to increment of inhibin B responding to exogenous gonadotropin, has been indicated as a potential predictor of ovarian response. Objective To establish mathematical models to predict ovarian response at the early phase of COS using Δinhibin B and other biomarkers. Materials and methods Prospective cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital, including 669 cycles underwent standard gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist ovarian stimulation between April 2020 and September 2020. Early Δinhibin B was defined as an increment in inhibin B from menstrual day 2 to day 6 through to the day of COS. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) logistic regression with 5-fold cross-validation was applied to construct ovarian response prediction models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity were used for evaluating model performance. Results Early Δinhibin B and basal antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels were the best measures in building models for predicting ovarian hypo- or hyper-responses, with AUCs and ranges of 0.948 (0.887–0.976) and 0.904 (0.836–0.945) in the validation set, respectively. The contribution of the early Δinhibin B was 67.7% in the poor response prediction model and 56.4% in the excessive response prediction model. The basal AMH level contributed 16.0% in the poor response prediction model and 25.0% in the excessive response prediction model. An online website-based tool (http://121.43.113.123:8001/) has been developed to make these complex algorithms available in clinical practice. Conclusion Early Δinhibin B might be a novel biomarker for predicting ovarian response in IVF cycles. Limiting the two prediction models to the high and the very-low risk groups would achieve satisfactory performances and clinical significance. These novel models might help in counseling patients on their estimated ovarian response and reduce iatrogenic poor or excessive ovarian responses.

[1]  Ying Zhong,et al.  Can Inhibin B Reflect Ovarian Reserve of Healthy Reproductive Age Women Effectively? , 2021, Frontiers in Endocrinology.

[2]  F. Stanczyk,et al.  Association of bioavailable inhibin B and oocyte yield in controlled ovarian stimulation , 2021, F&S reports.

[3]  J. Qiao,et al.  Clinical Applications of Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone Measurements in Both Males and Females: An Update , 2021, Innovation.

[4]  J. Qiao,et al.  An easy applicable AFA model based on AMH, FSH, and age for ovarian reserve assessment: a retrospective cohort study. , 2020, Journal of medical Internet research.

[5]  J. Strauss,et al.  Significance of pro-angiogenic estrogen metabolites in normal follicular development and follicular growth arrest in polycystic ovary syndrome. , 2020, Human reproduction.

[6]  J. Qiao,et al.  A novel mathematical model of true ovarian reserve assessment based on predicted probability of poor ovarian response: a retrospective cohort study , 2020, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[7]  P. Humaidan,et al.  Novel Physiology and Definition of Poor Ovarian Response; Clinical Recommendations , 2020, International journal of molecular sciences.

[8]  M. Fernández-Sánchez,et al.  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. , 2019, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[9]  H. A. van den Berg Occam's Razor: From Ockham's via Moderna to Modern Data Science , 2018, Science progress.

[10]  J. Qiao,et al.  Retrospective cohort study: AMH is the best ovarian reserve markers in predicting ovarian response but has unfavorable value in predicting clinical pregnancy in GnRH antagonist protocol , 2017, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[11]  F. Ubaldi,et al.  A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. , 2016, Fertility and sterility.

[12]  Y. Li,et al.  The dynamic changes of anti-Mullerian hormone and inhibin B during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in decreased ovarian reserve women and the effect on clinical outcome , 2015, Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology.

[13]  B. Vollenhoven,et al.  Prevention of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome: A Review , 2015, Obstetrics and gynecology international.

[14]  M. Hickey,et al.  What is the "ovarian reserve"? , 2015, Fertility and sterility.

[15]  F. Broekmans,et al.  Anti-Müllerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. , 2014, Human reproduction update.

[16]  Jie Yan,et al.  The root of reduced fertility in aged women and possible therapentic options: current status and future perspects. , 2014, Molecular aspects of medicine.

[17]  Jiayin Liu,et al.  Comparisons of inhibin B versus antimüllerian hormone in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[18]  T. Habara,et al.  The role of anti-mullerian hormone measurement in the prediction of response to controlled ovarian stimulation: comparison with the antral follicle count , 2011 .

[19]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[20]  Sesh Kamal Sunkara,et al.  Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[21]  R. Casamitjana,et al.  Day-5 inhibin B serum concentrations and antral follicle count as predictors of ovarian response and live birth in assisted reproduction cycles stimulated with gonadotropin after pituitary suppression. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  D. Dewailly,et al.  Serum inhibin B during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: an additional criterion for deciding whether to proceed with egg retrieval. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[23]  B. Mol,et al.  The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[24]  E. Margalioth,et al.  Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome , 2005 .

[25]  J. Habbema,et al.  Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. , 2005, Fertility and sterility.

[26]  S. Muttukrishna,et al.  Inhibin B and anti‐Mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients? , 2004, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[27]  J. Habbema,et al.  Use of Stimulated Serum Estradiol Measurements for the Prediction of Hyperresponse to Ovarian Stimulation in in Vitro Fertilization (IVF) , 2004, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[28]  Y. Hwu,et al.  Estradiol Level on Day 9 as a Predictor of Risk for Ovarian Hyperresponse During Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation , 2003, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[29]  R. Fanchin,et al.  Serum anti-Müllerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[30]  N. Frydman,et al.  Serum anti-Müllerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[31]  W. Robertson,et al.  Day 5 inhibin B levels in a treatment cycle are predictive of IVF outcome. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[32]  J. Habbema,et al.  Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. , 2002, Fertility and sterility.

[33]  R. Casamitjana,et al.  Day 3 serum inhibin B and FSH and age as predictors of assisted reproduction treatment outcome. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[34]  P C Ho,et al.  The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an IVF programme. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[35]  D. Cramer,et al.  Inhibin A and inhibin B reflect ovarian function in assisted reproduction but are less useful at predicting outcome. , 1999, Human reproduction.

[36]  A. Mcneilly,et al.  Measurement of dimeric inhibin B throughout the human menstrual cycle. , 1996, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[37]  I. Cooke,et al.  Progressive changes in LH and FSH and LH: FSH ratio in women throughout reproductive life. , 1988, Maturitas.

[38]  Dennis Andersson,et al.  A retrospective cohort study , 2018 .

[39]  Maja O’Connor LONGITUDINAL STUDY , 2013 .

[40]  F. Broekmans,et al.  AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. , 2011, Human reproduction update.

[41]  C. Welt,et al.  Differential regulation of inhibin B and inhibin a by follicle-stimulating hormone and local growth factors in human granulosa cells from small antral follicles. , 2001, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[42]  G. Lambert-Messerlian,et al.  Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. , 1997, Fertility and sterility.

[43]  Robert C. Wolpert,et al.  A Review of the , 1985 .

[44]  K. Johnson An Update. , 1984, Journal of food protection.