title: Comparability of antimüllerian hormone levels among commercially available immunoassays.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels among three commercially available AMH immunoassays: AMH Gen II (Beckman Coulter), Ultrasensitive AMH (Ansh Labs), and picoAMH (Ansh Labs).
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional.
  
  
  METHODS
  Academic reproductive endocrinology program.
  
  
  METHODS
  90 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients before cancer treatment.
  
  
  METHODS
  None.
  
  
  METHODS
  Proportion of detectable AMH levels by immunoassay, and comparability among assays.
  
  
  RESULTS
  At a mean age of 38.1 years, the median (interquartile range) AMH level for the cohort was 0.92 [1.35] ng/mL for the Gen II assay, 1.68 [2.30] ng/mL for the Ultrasensitive assay, and 1.52 [2.41] ng/mL for the picoAMH assay. Significantly higher proportions of detectable AMH levels were observed with the picoAMH kit (97%) compared with both the Gen II (84%) and Ultrasensitive (92%) assays. Although the AMH results were highly correlated among the assays (r = 0.92-0.99), the 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 with the Gen II kit. Conversion of AMH levels from different immunoassays using regression equations is potentially highly inaccurate.
authors.affiliation: Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California.
authors.forename: H Irene
authors.initials: HI
authors.lastname: Su
authors.affiliation: Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perlman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
authors.forename: Mary D
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Sammel
authors.affiliation: Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California.
authors.forename: Michael V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Homer
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
authors.forename: Kim
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Bui
authors.affiliation: Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California.
authors.forename: Carolyn
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Haunschild
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: fstanczyk@socal.rr.com.
authors.forename: Frank Z
authors.initials: FZ
authors.lastname: Stanczyk
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D054304:Anti-Mullerian Hormone / Q000097:blood*; D015415:Biomarkers / Q000097:blood; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000097:blood*; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007118:Immunoassay / Q000592:standards*; D015588:Observer Variation; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012044:Regression Analysis; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
chemical_list: D015415:Biomarkers; D054304:Anti-Mullerian Hormone
keywords: AMH; breast cancer; immunoassay
references.citation: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Jan;137(2):571-7
references.pmid: 23224236
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2011 Jun 30;95(8):2602-4
references.pmid: 21315333
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Dec;88(12):5957-62
references.pmid: 14671196
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2007 Jul;22(7):1837-40
references.pmid: 17485437
references.citation: Clin Chim Acta. 2007 Jan;375(1-2):162-4
references.pmid: 16860302
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2003 Feb;18(2):328-32
references.pmid: 12571169
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2000 Oct;31(10):1202-8
references.pmid: 11070112
references.citation: Mol Hum Reprod. 2004 Feb;10(2):77-83
references.pmid: 14742691
references.citation: Clin Chim Acta. 2007 Sep;384(1-2):174-5
references.pmid: 17601522
references.citation: Endocrinology. 1999 Dec;140(12):5789-96
references.pmid: 10579345
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;117(4):798-804
references.pmid: 21422850
references.citation: Ann Clin Biochem. 2011 Jul;48(Pt 4):370-3
references.pmid: 21628625
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2009 Jan;91(1):226-30
references.pmid: 18249391
references.citation: Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2010 Feb;37(2):143-9
references.pmid: 19719745
references.citation: Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2002 Jul;29(7):527-36
references.pmid: 12060093
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Apr;97(4):1159-68
references.pmid: 22344196
references.citation: Hum Reprod Update. 2006 Nov-Dec;12(6):685-718
references.pmid: 16891297
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Oct;91(10):4057-63
references.pmid: 16804046
references.citation: J Immunol Methods. 2010 Oct 31;362(1-2):51-9
references.pmid: 20801125
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2007 Jul;22(7):1996-2005
references.pmid: 17582145
references.citation: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 Dec;29(12):1443-6
references.pmid: 23117477
references.citation: Cancer. 2010 Feb 1;116(3):592-9
references.pmid: 19918920
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2013 Feb;99(2):477-83
references.pmid: 23084267