Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of follicular stimulating hormone (FSH) in different age groups of poor ovarian reserve (POR) infertile patients.

Material and Methods: The records of infertile patients who presented to a tertiary center hospital infertility outpatient clinic were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into two groups: those between the ages of 20-29 were considered as group 1, and those between the ages of 30-39 were considered as group 2. FSH specificity and sensitivity were compared in patients with (POR) with antimullerian hormone (AMH) values below <1 ng/mLThe specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of the FSH assay as a diagnostic tool for determining reduced OR in females with POR were compared and predicted using ROC curve analysis.

Results: A total of 102 infertile patients were assessed. Those between the ages of 20-29 were considered as group 1, and those between the ages of 30-39 were considered as group 2. The avarages FSH levels for each group were 9.73 ± 3.17 and 10.06 ± 8.74, respectively (p value = 0.85). The sensitivity, accuracy, and specificity of the FSH assay were, 85%, 78%, and 68%, respectively (p=0,001). In group 2, FSH values may be more meaningful for evaluating the ovarian reserve.

Conclusion: FSH was not correlated with AMH and antral follicule count (AFC). In the age-specific FSH assessment showed that FSH is still not a specific marker in POR. This study concluded that FSH and age have a weak correlation with the number of follicles restored and the number of oocytes retrieved.

Keywords: age, antimullerian hormone, follicular stimulating hormone, infertility, ovarian reserve

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). This is an open-access article published by Bolu İzzet Baysal Training and Research Hospital under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite

1.
Peker N, Ege S. Is there a difference in FSH levels between different age groups of infertile patients with poor ovarian reserve?. Northwestern Med J. 2025;5(2):93-7. https://doi.org/10.54307/2025.NWMJ.74

References

  1. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010; 16(2): 113-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp036
  2. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20(3): 370-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt062
  3. Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig LB. Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95(1): 170-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.006
  4. Roudebush WE, Kivens WJ, Mattke JM. Biomarkers of Ovarian Reserve. Biomark Insights. 2008; 3: 259-68. https://doi.org/10.4137/bmi.s537
  5. Fréour T, Mirallié S, Bach-Ngohou K, Denis M, Barrière P, Masson D. Measurement of serum anti-Müllerian hormone by Beckman Coulter ELISA and DSL ELISA: comparison and relevance in assisted reproduction technology (ART). Clin Chim Acta. 2007; 375(1-2): 162-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2006.06.013
  6. Broer SL, Broekmans FJM, Laven JSE, Fauser BCJM. Anti-Müllerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20(5): 688-701. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu020
  7. Iliodromiti S, Salje B, Dewailly D, et al. Non-equivalence of anti-Müllerian hormone automated assays-clinical implications for use as a companion diagnostic for individualised gonadotrophin dosing. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(8): 1710-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex219
  8. Zuvela E, Walls M, Matson P. Within-laboratory and between-laboratory variability in the measurement of anti-müllerian hormone determined within an external quality assurance scheme. Reprod Biol. 2013; 13(3): 255-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repbio.2013.04.005
  9. Broekmans FJM, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(3): 1044-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.040
  10. Tal R, Seifer DB. Ovarian reserve testing: a user's guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(2): 129-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.027
  11. Anderson RA, Anckaert E, Bosch E, et al. Prospective study into the value of the automated Elecsys antimüllerian hormone assay for the assessment of the ovarian growing follicle pool. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(4): 1074-1080.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.004
  12. Amer Abed F, Ezzat Maroof R, Al-Nakkash UMA. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of anti-müllerian hormone and follicle stimulating hormone in detecting premature ovarian failure in iraqi women by ROC analysis. Rep Biochem Mol Biol. 2019; 8(2): 126-31.
  13. Jamil Z, Fatima SS, Cheema Z, Baig S, Choudhary RA. Assessment of ovarian reserve: Anti-Mullerian hormone versus follicle stimulating hormone. J Res Med Sci. 2016; 21: 100. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-1995.193172
  14. Siddiqui QUA, Anjum S, Zahra F, Yousuf SM. Ovarian reserve parameters and response to controlled ovarian stimulation in infertile patients. Pak J Med Sci. 2019; 35(4): 958-62. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.4.753