The improved long-term survival of adolescents and young women treated for cancer has resulted in an increased focus on the effects of chemotherapy on ovarian function and its preservation. These women may seek advice and treatment regarding their reproductive status, including ways of preserving their fertility and preventing a premature menopause--factors that can have a profound impact on their quality of life. This article comprehensively reviews ovarian reserve testing (ORT) in general. Special emphasis is placed on patients with cancer, including the pathophysiology of gonadal damage following chemotherapy, fertility preservation and the potential role of ORT. Baseline parameters of ovarian reserve [FSH LH, estradiol, inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH)] have not yet performed sufficiently well in predicting poor outcome in assisted reproduction, but biochemical markers of ovarian reserve appear to be better than chronological age. Inhibin B and AMH show potential for future use. Dynamic testing appears to show much promise, especially stimulated levels of inhibin B and estradiol. The most promising tests of ovarian reserve are the biophysical markers, where total antral follicle count was found to be most discriminatory followed by ovarian volume. Combination of biochemical, biophysical and clinical markers of ovarian reserve may also improve predictive capacity. However, there is a lack of data pertinent to ORT in cancer. As yet there is no single clinically useful test to predict ovarian reserve accurately. Patients with cancer represent a distinct cohort who have particular concerns about their future fertility and the possibility of a premature menopause, they can benefit greatly from knowledge of their functional ovarian reserve. Large, prospective, randomized, adequately controlled studies specific to different geographical areas are required in a control population of comparable reproductive age to determine the potential role of ORT in clinical practice.

Ovarian reserve can be diminished following treatment for breast cancer. This study evaluated biochemical and biophysical parameters of ovarian reserve in these patients. Biochemical and biophysical tests of ovarian reserve were performed simultaneously in young (age 22 -42 years), regularly menstruating women with breast cancer (n ¼ 22) and age-matched controls (n ¼ 24). All tests were performed before (baseline) and after transient ovarian stimulation in the early follicular phase. Patients were recruited both before and after completion of chemotherapy, with some patients being followed up prospectively. Serum samples were analysed for follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinising hormone (LH), oestradiol (E 2 ), inhibins A and B, and antimullerian hormone (AMH). Biophysical (ultrasound) tests included ovarian volume, antral follicle count (AFC), ovarian stromal blood flow and uterine dimensions. Significant differences were revealed (when compared with the controls) for basal FSH (11.3271

This is the first study in Wales to evaluate the RMI in triaging women with pelvic masses. Overall, RMI 1 and RMI 2 are better malignancy predictors than RMI 3. It would be recommended that RMI 1 and RMI 2 be compared in a head-to-head prospective study, although we suspect that RMI 1 is likely to be the overall best malignancy predictor.