These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Single and repeated GnRH agonist stimulation tests compared with basal markers of ovarian reserve in the prediction of outcome in IVF.
    Author: Hendriks DJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Looman CW, de Jong FH, te Velde ER.
    Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet; 2005 Feb; 22(2):65-73. PubMed ID: 15844731.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To study the value of a single or repeated GnRH agonist stimulation test (GAST) in predicting outcome in IVF compared to basal ovarian reserve tests. METHODS: A total of 57 women was included. In a cycle prior to the IVF treatment, on day 3, an antral follicle count (AFC) was performed and blood taken for basal FSH, inhibin B and E2 measurements, followed by a subcutaneous injection of 100 microg triptorelin for the purpose of the GAST. Twenty-four hours later blood sampling was repeated. All the tests were repeated in a subsequent cycle. From the GAST E2 and inhibin B response were used as test parameters. The outcome measures were poor ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy. Group comparisons were done using the Mann-Whitney or chi-square test. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was applied to assess which test revealed the highest predictive accuracy as expressed in the area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC(AUC)). Clinical value was compared by calculating classical test characteristics for the best logistic models. RESULTS: All the basal and GAST variables were significantly different in the poor responders (n = 19) compared to normal responders (n = 38). In the univariate analysis on cycle 1 tests the AFC was the best predictor for poor ovarian response, while in cycle 2 the E2 response in the GAST performed best (ROC(AUC) of 0.91 for both). Multivariate analysis of the basal variables led to the selection of AFC and inhibin B in cycle 1, yielding a ROC(AUC) of 0.96. Mean E2 response was selected in a multivariate analysis of the repeated GAST variables (ROC(AUC) 0.91). At a specificity level of -0.90, several logistic models including GAST variables appeared to have a sensitivity (-0.80), positive predictive value (-0.82) and false positive rate (-0.18), comparable to a logistic model containing AFC and inhibin B. None of the test variables showed a significant relation with ongoing pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: The GAST has a rather good ability to predict poor response in IVF. However, comparing the predictive accuracy and clinical value of the GAST with a day 3 AFC and inhibin B, it appeared that neither a single nor a repeated GAST performed better. In addition, the predictive ability towards ongoing pregnancy is poor. Therefore, the use of the GAST as a predictor of outcome in IVF should not be advocated.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]