4.5 Article

BRCA Mutation Carriers Do Not Have Compromised Ovarian Reserve

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000058

关键词

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers; Ovarian reserve; Anti-mullerian hormone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Controversy exists about the impact of BRCA1/2 mutations on female fertility. Previous studies are small or based on indirect parameters (eg, self-reported infertility), which depend on additional factors unrelated to true fertility potential. Most of the previous studies did not use strict fertility markers. Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate the relation between carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and fertility using the level of anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), which has been previously shown to be an accurate marker of ovarian reserve and fertility potential. Patients and Methods Forty-one healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, aged 26 to 40 years, attending a multidisciplinary breast and ovarian cancer surveillance clinic, were tested for AMH levels using a 2-site ELISA. Levels were compared with those of our general population and with well-established normograms of the general population. Results The mean age of carriers was 33.2 years (26-39 years; SD, 3.99 years). The mean parity of carriers was 1.97 (0-7; SD, 1.49). All women carried at least 1 Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutation. The AMH levels for most carriers were in the reference range, 2.71 0.59 ng/mL (approximately 50th percentile of normograms). These levels were similar to those in the control group, in which the AMH levels were 2.02 +/- 0.12 ng/mL (P = 0.27). Conclusions The AMH levels of healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are similar to those of noncarrier women matched for age; therefore, their ovarian reserve is comparable. This is the only study, to the best of our knowledge, that directly examines ovarian reserve in a relatively large group of carriers with an accurate marker. The results of this study may possibly give reassurance to female carriers concerning fertility potential.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据