4.7 Article

Anti-mullerian hormone is a sensitive serum marker for gonadal function in women treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma during childhood

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 92, 期 10, 页码 3869-3874

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2006-2374

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of combination chemotherapy treatment for girls with Hodgkin's lymphoma ( HL) on gonadal function using anti-Mullerian hormone ( AMH) and inhibin B as ovarian reserve parameters. Patients and Methods: LH, FSH, inhibin B, and AMH were measured in 32 women treated from 1974 to 1998 for pediatric HL with chemotherapy, with the intention to avoid radiotherapy. All patients [ median age 25.0 yr ( range 19.2-40.4 yr)] were in complete remission with a median follow-up time of 14.0 yr ( range 5.7-24.5 yr) after therapy. All patients were treated with combination chemotherapy doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine ( ABVD) or EBVD with or without mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone ( MOPP). Because of incomplete remission or relapse, involved field radiotherapy was needed in seven of 32 women. Results were compared with a healthy control group. Results: Patients treated with six or more cycles of MOPP combination chemotherapy had significantly higher levels of FSH and lower serum levels of inhibin B and AMH, compared with healthy women [ FSH, 17.0 vs. 6.0 U/liter ( P < 0.05); inhibin B, 23.0 vs. 112.5 ng/ liter ( P < 0.01); AMH, 0.39 vs. 2.10 mu g/ liter ( P < 0.01)]. AMH was also significantly lower, compared with women treated without MOPP ( median 0.39 vs. 1.40 mu g/ liter; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Women treated during childhood for HL with MOPP seem to have a distinctly lower ovarian reserve as measured by lower AMH values at early adulthood, compared with healthy women. Moreover, AMH seems to be the only predictor that is sufficiently sensitive to detect this decrease in ovarian reserve.

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

4.7
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