Comparability of antimüllerian hormone levels among commercially available immunoassays

Abstract

Objective To compare AMH levels among three commercially available AMH immunoassays (AMH Gen II, Beckman Coulter; Ultrasensitive AMH, AnshLab; picoAMH, AnshLab) Design Cross-sectional Setting Academic reproductive endocrinology program Patients 90 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients prior to cancer treatment Interventions None Outcome 1) proportion of detectable AMH levels by immunoassay, 2) comparability among assays Results At a mean age of 38.1, the median (interquartile range) for AMH levels for the cohort were 0.92 [1.35] ng/mL for the Gen II assay, 1.68 [2.30] ng/mL for the Ultrasensitive and 1.5 [2.41] ng/mL for the picoAMH assays. Significantly higher proportions of detectable AMH levels were observed with the picoAMH kit (97%) compared to both Gen II (84%) and Ultrasensitive (92%) assays. Although AMH results were highly correlated among assays (r=0.92–0.99), Gen II AMH levels were consistently lower than both Ultrasensitive and picoAMH levels. Moreover, as AMH levels increased, the magnitude of difference grew larger between Gen II and each of the other two assays. Conclusions Measurement of AMH levels with the picoAMH kit maximized detection at very low levels, particularly in contrast to the Gen II kit. Conversion of AMH levels from different immunoassays using regression equations is potentially highly inaccurate.

Reliability of AMH in Serum after Long-term Storage at -80°C and an Extended Thawing Episode

“…However, as the limits of agreement were wide, we cannot exclude the possibility that an extended storage time may result in a minor drift of the AMH measurements. The difference between the two AMH methods was in agreement with other studies comparing Ansh-AMH and GenII-AMH (the latter method using the same antibody as DSL-AMH), which resulted in 1.4-1.8 times higher values with Ansh-AMH [20,21]. No previous studies report conversion factors between Ansh-AMH and DSL-AMH, and as there is no international AMH standard, comparison between the different assays is difficult.…”

Demographic, lifestyle, and other factors in relation to antimüllerian hormone levels in mostly late premenopausal women

“…Quantile regression, used for analysis, though less powerful than linear regression provides valid estimates of central tendency and effectively reduces the influence of outliers and, thus, gives a more accurate picture of correlates of badly skewed biomarkers such as AMH (56). Finally, all samples were analyzed for AMH in a single laboratory using a new ultrasensitive assay (LOD: 0.02 ng/mL for our assay vs. 0.08 ng/mL for another commonly used kit) (89, 90), with demonstrated good validity and reproducibility (91, 92). …”

Anti-Müllerian Hormone Concentrations in Premenopausal Women and Breast Cancer Risk

“…Newly developed, ultra-sensitive AMH assays allow for high quality AMH measurement at older reproductive ages and were used in this analysis (27, 28). Nevertheless, we observed an increasing proportion of samples with non-detectable levels with increasing age from 35 to 54—>50% of women 50 and older had non-detectable values.…”