Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 4, 964-969,
April 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Poor responders to ovulation induction: is proceeding to in-vitro fertilization worthwhile?
Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
A `poor response' in the context of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) can be defined as failure to produce an adequate number of mature follicles, and/or a peak oestradiol concentration less than a defined minimum. The cut-off points implied in this definition vary between different centres. Many opt to cancel the IVF cycle when their defined minimum concentrations are not reached despite the lack of evidence of improved outcome in subsequent cycles. Patients attending the Oxford Fertility Unit who are `poor responders' have always been given the option of continuing with treatment. The first cycles of IVF in 124 patients, with normal day 3 follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), who produced less than five follicles within a 2 year period were studied. The patients were divided into three groups according to the number of follicles produced: A (one or two follicles; n = 33), B (three follicles; n = 33) and C (four follicles; n = 58). The three groups were similar in age, day 3 FSH, total gonadotrophin dose, duration of stimulation, peak oestradiol concentration, oocyte yield, fertilization rate and the clinical pregnancy rate. However, group A had a significantly higher oestradiol concentration per follicle (P < 0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate/cycle in the three groups was comparable to our overall rate in the study period (25.5%). This paper suggests that poor responders with a normal day 3 FSH may still achieve a pregnancy rate similar to that of normal responders.
Key words: IVF/ovulation induction/poor responders
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Solihull Hospital, Lode Lane, Solihull B91 2JL, UK
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. La Marca, G. Sighinolfi, D. Radi, C. Argento, E. Baraldi, A. C. Artenisio, G. Stabile, and A. Volpe Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART) Hum. Reprod. Update, September 30, 2009; (2009) dmp036v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. La Marca, F.J. Broekmans, A. Volpe, B.C. Fauser, N.S. Macklon, and on behalf of the ESHRE Special Interest Group for Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): what do we still need to know? Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2009; 24(9): 2264 - 2275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. J. Broekmans, M. R. Soules, and B. C. Fauser Ovarian Aging: Mechanisms and Clinical Consequences Endocr. Rev., August 1, 2009; 30(5): 465 - 493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kan, E. H. Y. Ng, W. S. B. Yeung, and P. C. Ho Perifollicular vascularity in poor ovarian responders during IVF Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2006; 21(6): 1539 - 1544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. H. Y. Ng, C. C. W. Chan, O. S. Tang, and P. C. Ho Antral follicle count and FSH concentration after clomiphene citrate challenge test in the prediction of ovarian response during IVF treatment Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2005; 20(6): 1647 - 1654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.J. Goverde, J. McDonnell, R. Schats, J.P.W. Vermeiden, R. Homburg, and C.B. Lambalk Ovarian response to standard gonadotrophin stimulation for IVF is decreased not only in older but also in younger women in couples with idiopathic and male subfertility Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2005; 20(6): 1573 - 1577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.R. Klinkert, F.J.M. Broekmans, C.W.N. Looman, J.D.F. Habbema, and E.R. te Velde Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 611 - 615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Lutchman Singh, M. Davies, and R. Chatterjee Fertility in female cancer survivors: pathophysiology, preservation and the role of ovarian reserve testing Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2005; 11(1): 69 - 89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Kailasam, S.D. Keay, P. Wilson, W.C.L. Ford, and J.M. Jenkins Defining poor ovarian response during IVF cycles, in women aged <40 years, and its relationship with treatment outcome Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2004; 19(7): 1544 - 1547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V.A. Akande, C.F. Fleming, L.P. Hunt, S.D. Keay, and J.M. Jenkins Biological versus chronological ageing of oocytes, distinguishable by raised FSH levels in relation to the success of IVF treatment Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2002; 17(8): 2003 - 2008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Akman, H. F. Erden, S. B. Tosun, N. Bayazit, E. Aksoy, and M. Bahceci Comparison of agonistic flare-up-protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2001; 16(5): 868 - 870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Garcia-Velasco, V. Isaza, A. Requena, Fco.J. Martinez-Salazar, A. Landazabal, J. Remohi, A. Pellicer, and C. Simon High doses of gonadotrophins combined with stop versus non-stop protocol of GnRH analogue administration in low responder IVF patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2000; 15(11): 2292 - 2296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|