Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2005; 23(3): 248-256
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-872453
Copyright © 2005 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Ovarian Reserve

N. S. Macklon1 , B.C.J. M. Fauser2
  • 1Professor, Head Infertility, Department of Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • 2Professor, Head, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Chair, Division of Perinatology and Gynecology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
01 August 2005 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The tendency to delay childbirth has increased the importance of ovarian reserve as a determinant of infertility treatment outcome. In the context of assisted reproduction technology, effective strategies to overcome the impact of ovarian aging and diminished ovarian reserve on pregnancy chances remain elusive. Markers of ovarian reserve are increasingly used to aid management and counseling of these patients. Proper interpretation of currently applied hormonal markers, ultrasound parameters, and hormone challenge tests requires an understanding of what constitutes and determines ovarian reserve. This article addresses these aspects and highlights recent developments in the field.

KEYWORDS

Ovarian reserve - ovarian aging - assisted reproduction - follicle-stimulating hormone - antral follicle count

REFERENCES

  • 1 Evers J L. Female subfertility.  Lancet. 2002;  360 151-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Baker T C. A quantitative and cytological study of germ cells in human ovaries.  Proc R Soc Lond Br Biol Sci. 1963;  158 417-433
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Forabasco A, Sforza C, de Pol A, Vizzotto L, Marzona L. Morphometric study of the human neonatal ovary.  Anat Rec. 1991;  231 201-208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Himelstein-Braw R, Byskov A G, Peters H, Faber M. Follicular atresia in the infant human ovary.  J Reprod Fertil. 1976;  46 455-459
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Faddy M J, Gosden R G, Gougeon A, Richardson S J, Nelson J F. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause.  Hum Reprod. 1992;  7 1342-1346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schwartzman R A, Cidlowski J. Apoptosis: the biochemistry and molecular biology of programmed cell death.  Endocr Rev. 1993;  14 133-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lintern-Moore S, Peters H, Moore G P, Faber M. Follicular development in the infant human ovary.  J Reprod Fertil. 1974;  39 53-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Johnson J, Canning J, Kaneko T, Pru J K, Tilly J L. Germline stem cells and follicular renewal in the postnatal mammalian ovary.  Nature. 2004;  428 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Treloar A E. Menstrual cyclicity and the premenopause.  Maturitas. 1981;  3 49-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Scott R T, Toner J P, Muasher S J, Oehninger S, Robinson S, Rosenwaks Z. Follicle-stimulating hormone levels on cycle day 3 are predictive of in vitro fertilization outcome.  Fertil Steril. 1989;  51 651-654
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Klein N A, Battaglia D E, Fujimoto V Y. Reproductive aging: accelerated ovarian follicular development associated with a monotropic rise in follicle-stimulating hormone rise in normal older women.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;  81 1038-1045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 te Velde E R, Pearson P L. The variability of female reproductive ageing.  Hum Reprod Update. 2002;  8 141-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Piette C, de Mouzon J, Bachelot A, Spira A. In-vitro fertilization: influence of women's age on pregnancy rates.  Hum Reprod. 1990;  5 56-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tucker M J, Morton P C, Wright G, Ingargiola P E, Jones A E, Sweitzer C L. Factors affecting success with intracytoplasmic sperm injection.  Reprod Fertil Dev. 1995;  7 229-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ashkenazi J, Orvieto R, Gold-Deutch R et al.. The impact of woman’s age and sperm parameters on fertilization rates in IVF cycles.  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;  66 155-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yie S M, Collins J A, Daya S, Hughes E, Sagle M, Younglie E V. Polyploidy and failed fertilization in in-vitro fertilization are related to patients age and gamete quality.  Hum Reprod. 1996;  11 614-617
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cordiero I, Calhaz-Jorge C, Barata M, Leal F, Proenca H, Coelho A M. Repercussao da idade de mulher, de taxa de clivagem e da qualidade embrionaria, na obtencao de graviez por fertilizacao in-vitro.  Acta Med Port. 1995;  8 145-150
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hull M G, Fleming C F, Hughes A O, McDermott A. The age related decline in female fecundity: a quantitative controlled study of implanting capacity and survival of individual embryos after in-vitro fertilization.  Fertil Steril. 1996;  65 783-790
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sharif K, Elgendy M, Lashen H, Afnan M. Age and basal follicle stimulating hormone as predictors of in vitro fertilization outcome.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;  105 107-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Yaron Y, Botchan A, Amit A et al.. Endometrial receptivity: the age related decline in pregnancy rates and the effect of ovarian function.  Fertil Steril. 1993;  60 314-318
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Roest J, Van Heusden A M, Mous H, Zeilmaker G H, Verhoeff A. The ovarian response as a predictor for successful in vitro fertilization treatment after the age of 40 years.  Fertil Steril. 1996;  66 969-973
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Widra E A, Botchan A, Amit A, Kogosowaki A, Yovel I, Lessing J B. Endometrial receptivity: the age-related decline in pregnancy rates and the effect of ovarian function.  Fertil Steril. 1996;  65 103-108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Legro R S, Shakleworth D P, Moessner J M, Gnatuk C L, Dodson W C. ART in women 40 and over. Is the cost worth it?.  J Reprod Med. 1997;  42 76-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Noord-Zaadstra B M, Looman C W, Alsbach H, Habbema J D, te Velde E R, Karbaat J. Delaying childbearing: effect of age on fecundity and outcome of pregnancy.  BMJ. 1991;  302 1361-1365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Templeton A A, Morris J K, Parslow W. Factors that affect the outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment.  Lancet. 1996;  348 1402-1406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chuang C C, Chen C D, Chao K H, Chen S U, Ho H N, Yang Y S. Age is a better predictor of pregnancy potential than basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels in women undergoing in vitro fertilization.  Fertil Steril. 2003;  79 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fauser B CJM, Macklon N S. Medical approaches to ovarian stimulation for infertility. In: Strauss JF, Barbieri RL Yen and Jaffe's Reproductive Endocrinology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA; Elsevier Saunders 2004: 965-1012
    Google Scholar
  • 28 de Boer E J, den Tonkelaar I, te Velde E R, Burger C W, Klip H, van Leeuwen F E. A low number of retrieved oocytes at in vitro fertilization treatment is predictive of early menopause.  Fertil Steril. 2002;  77 978-985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Nikolaou D, Lavery S, Turner C, Margara R, Trew G. Is there a link between an extremely poor response to ovarian hyperstimulation and early ovarian failure?.  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17 1106-1111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lawson R, El-Toukhy T, Kassab A et al.. Poor response to ovulation induction is a stronger predictor of early menopause than elevated basal FSH: a life table analysis.  Hum Reprod. 2003;  18 527-533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tarlatzis B C, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review.  Hum Reprod Update. 2003;  9 61-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Van Hooff M H, Alberda A T, Huisman G J, Zeilmaker G H, Leerentveld R A. Doubling the human menopausal gonadotrophin dose in the course of an in-vitro fertilization treatment cycle in low responders: a randomized study.  Hum Reprod. 1993;  8 369-373
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Out H J, Braat D D, Lintsen B M et al.. Increasing the daily dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) does not compensate for the age-related decline in retrievable oocytes after ovarian stimulation.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 29-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Keny S. The poor responed. In: Macklon N NF in One Medically Complicated Patient: A Guide to Management London; Taylor and Francis 2005: 205-219
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Muasher S J, Oehninger S, Simonetti S et al.. The value of basal and/or stimulated serum gonadotropin levels in prediction of stimulation response and in vitro fertilization outcome.  Fertil Steril. 1988;  50 298-307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Toner J P, Philput C B, Jones G S, Muasher S J. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone level is a better predictor of in vitro fertilization performance than age.  Fertil Steril. 1991;  55 784-791
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Akande V A, Fleming C F, Hunt L P, Keay S D, Jenkins J M. Biological versus chronological ageing in oocytes, distinguishable by raised FSH levels in relation to the success of IVF treatment.  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17 2003-2008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 van Rooij I A, Bancsi L F, Broekmans F J, Looman C W, Habbema J D, te Velde E R. Women older than 40 years of age and those with elevated follicle-stimulating hormone levels differ in poor response rate and embryo quality in in vitro fertilization.  Fertil Steril. 2003;  79 482-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Toner J P. Modest follicle-stimulating hormone elevations in younger women: warn but don’t disqualify.  Fertil Steril. 2004;  81 1493-1495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Scott Jr R T, Hofmann G E. Prognostic assessment of ovarian reserve.  Fertil Steril. 1995;  63 1-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bancsi L F, Broekmans F J, Mol B W, Habbema J D, te Velde E R. Performance of basal follicle-stimulating hormone in the prediction of poor ovarian response and failure to become pregnant after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis.  Fertil Steril. 2003;  79 1091-1100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 van Rooij I AJ, de Jong E, Broekmans F JM et al.. High follicle-stimulating hormone levels should not necessarily lead to the exclusion of subfertile patients from treatment.  Fertil Steril. 2004;  81 1478-1485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Schipper I, de Jong F H, Fauser BCJM. Lack of correlation between maximum early follicular phase serum follicle-stimulating hormone levels and menstrual cycle characteristics in women under the age of 35.  Hum Reprod. 1998;  13 1442-1448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Martin JSB, Nisker J A, Tummon I S et al.. Future in vitro fertilization pregnancy potential of women with variable elevated day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels.  Fertil Steril. 1996;  65 1238-1240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Scott R T, Hofmann G E, Oehninger S C, Muasher S J. Intercycle variability of day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels and its effect on stimulation quality in in vitro fertilization.  Fertil Steril. 1990;  54 297-302
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Evers J L, Slaats P, Land J A, Dumoulin J C, Dunselman G A. Elevated levels of basal estradiol-17 beta predict poor response in patients with normal basal levels of follicle-stimulating hormone undergoing in vitro fertilization.  Fertil Steril. 1998;  69 1010-1014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Lockwood G M. Prognostic tests of ovarian reserve. In: Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques. 2nd ed. London; Taylor and Francis 2004: 781-787
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Groome N P, Illingworth P J, O'Brien M et al.. Measurement of dimeric inhibin B throughout the human menstrual cycle.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;  81 1401-1405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Creus M, Penarrubia J, Fabregues F et al.. Day 3 serum inhibin B and FSH and age as predictors of assisted reproduction treatment outcome.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 2341-2346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Yong P Y, Baird D T, Thong K J, McNeilly A S, Anderson R A. Prospective analysis of the relationships between the ovarian follicle cohort and basal FSH concentration, the inhibin response to exogenous FSH and ovarian follicle number at different stages of the normal menstrual cycle and after pituitary down-regulation.  Hum Reprod. 2003;  18 35-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Klein N A, Illingworth P J, Groome N P, McNeilly A S, Battaglia D E, Soules M R. Decreased inhibin B secretion is associated with the monotropic FSH rise in older, ovulatory women: a study of serum and follicular fluid levels of dimeric inhibin A and B in spontaneous menstrual cycles.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;  81 2742-2745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Seifer D B, Lambert-Messerlian G, Hogan J W, Gardiner A C, Blazar A S, Berk C A. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome.  Fertil Steril. 1997;  67 110-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Seifer D B, Scott Jr R T, Bergh P A et al.. Women with declining ovarian reserve may demonstrate a decrease in day 3 serum inhibin B before a rise in day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone.  Fertil Steril. 1999;  72 63-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Hall J E, Welt C K, Cramer D W. Inhibin A and inhibin B reflect ovarian function in assisted reproduction but are less useful at predicting outcome.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14 409-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Corson S L, Gutmann J, Batzer F R, Wallace H, Klein N, Soules M R. Inhibin-B as a test of ovarian reserve for infertile women.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14 2818-2821
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Penarrubia J, Balasch J, Fabregues F et al.. Day 5 inhibin B serum concentrations as predictors of assisted reproductive technology outcome in cycles stimulated with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist-gonadotrophin treatment.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 1499-1504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Fawzy M, Lambert A, Harrison R F et al.. Day 5 inhibin B levels in a treatment cycle are predictive of IVF outcome.  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17 1535-1543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Bancsi L F, Broekmans F J, Eijkemans M J, de Jong F H, Habbema J D, te Velde E R. Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve.  Fertil Steril. 2002;  77 328-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Reuss M L, Kline J, Santos R. Age and the ovarian follicle pool assessed with transvaginal ultrasonography.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  174 624-627
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Fratterelli J L, Levi A J, Miller B T, Segars J H. A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles.  Fertil Steril. 2003;  80 350-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Andolf A, Jorgensen C, Svalenius E et al.. Ultrasound measurement of the ovarian volume.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;  66 387-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Syrop C H, Willhoite A, van Voorhuis B J. Ovarian volume: a novel outcome predictor for assisted reproduction.  Fertil Steril. 1995;  64 1167-1171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Lass A, Skull J, McVeigh E, Margara R, Winston R M. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Syrop C H, Dawson J D, Husman K J et al.. Ovarian volume may predict assisted reproductive outcomes better than follicle stimulating hormone concentration on day 3.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14 1752-1756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Navot D, Rosenwaks Z, Mergalioth E J. Prognostic assessment of female fecundity.  Lancet. 1987;  2 645-647
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Bukman A, Heineman M J. Ovarian reserve testing and the use of prognostic models in patients with subfertility.  Hum Reprod Update. 2001;  7 581-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Sharara F I, Scott R T, Seifer D B. The detection of diminished ovarian reserve in infertile women.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  179 804-812
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Jain T, Soules M R, Collins J. Comparison of basal follicle-stimulating hormone versus the clomiphene citrate challenge test for ovarian reserve screening.  Fertil Steril. 2004;  82 180-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Fanchin R, de Ziegler D, Olivennes F et al.. Exogenous follicle stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT): a simple and reliable screening test for detecting ‘poor responders’ in in-vitro fertilization.  Hum Reprod. 1994;  9 1607-1611
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Lambalk C B, Schoemaker J. Intercycle variability of ovarian reserve tests: results of a prospective randomized study.  Hum Reprod. 2004;  19 590-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Padilla S L, Bayati J, Garcia J E. Prognostic value of the early serum estradiol response to leuprolide acetate in in vitro fertilization.  Fertil Steril. 1990;  53 288-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 De Vet A, Laven J S, de Jong F H, Themmen A P, Fauser B C. Anti-mullerian hormone serum hormone levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging.  Fertil Steril. 2002;  77 357-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Fanchin R, Schonauer L M, Righini C, Guibourdenche J, Frydman R, Taieb J. Serum anti-mullerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3.  Hum Reprod. 2003;  18 323-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Seifer D B, MacLaughlin D T, Christian B P, Feng B, Shelden R M. Early follicular serum mullerian-inhibiting levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles.  Fertil Steril. 2002;  77 468-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 van Rooij I A, Broekmans F J, te Velde E R et al.. Serum anti-mullerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve.  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17 3065-3071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Beckers N G, Macklon N S, Eijkemans M J, Fauser B C. Women with regular menstrual cycles and a poor response to ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization exhibit follicular phase characteristics suggestive of ovarian aging.  Fertil Steril. 2002;  78 291-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Hohmann F P, Macklon N S, Fauser B C. A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard longGnRH agonist protocol.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;  88 166-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Bath L E, Wallace W H, Shaw M P, Fitzpatrick C, Anderson R A. Depletion of ovarian reserve in young women after treatment for cancer in childhood: detection by anti-mullerian hormone, inhibin B and ovarian ultrasound.  Hum Reprod. 2003;  18 2368-2374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

 Prof.
N. S Macklon

Department of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre

Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100

3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands

Email: n.macklon@umcutrecht