{"title":"临床环境中的卵巢不良反应分类系统--是时候更新了?","authors":"Andres Reig, Emre Seli","doi":"10.1097/GCO.0000000000000950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Poor ovarian response (POR) remains a key challenge to the success of assisted reproductive technology. Here, we offer a comprehensive review of the two main classification systems for POR, discussing their promises and pitfalls, evaluating their performance, and exploring potential avenues for improving upon these definitions of POR.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The Bologna criteria represented the first meaningful attempt to create a universal POR definition. Subsequently, the POSEIDON classification system was published to provide a more nuanced view of POR, classifying patients into four groups based on age and ovarian reserve markers. A recent study evaluated the likelihood of achieving at least one euploid embryo for transfer and found that, indeed, these classification systems are effective predictors of this outcome.While these criteria provide an effective counseling tool, several limitations - not considering underlying conditions, selecting somewhat arbitrary cutoffs, and evaluating the number of oocytes retrieved regardless of maturity - highlight the importance of improving upon these systems to create a more useful tool to more accurately predict ovarian response for clinical and research purposes.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>In the era of personalized medicine, it is time to reconsider whether diagnostic criteria for a continuous metric such as ovarian response should be based on meeting all-or-nothing thresholds for specific parameters.</p>","PeriodicalId":55194,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":"36 3","pages":"192-199"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Poor ovarian response classification systems in the clinical setting - time for an update?\",\"authors\":\"Andres Reig, Emre Seli\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/GCO.0000000000000950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Poor ovarian response (POR) remains a key challenge to the success of assisted reproductive technology. Here, we offer a comprehensive review of the two main classification systems for POR, discussing their promises and pitfalls, evaluating their performance, and exploring potential avenues for improving upon these definitions of POR.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The Bologna criteria represented the first meaningful attempt to create a universal POR definition. Subsequently, the POSEIDON classification system was published to provide a more nuanced view of POR, classifying patients into four groups based on age and ovarian reserve markers. A recent study evaluated the likelihood of achieving at least one euploid embryo for transfer and found that, indeed, these classification systems are effective predictors of this outcome.While these criteria provide an effective counseling tool, several limitations - not considering underlying conditions, selecting somewhat arbitrary cutoffs, and evaluating the number of oocytes retrieved regardless of maturity - highlight the importance of improving upon these systems to create a more useful tool to more accurately predict ovarian response for clinical and research purposes.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>In the era of personalized medicine, it is time to reconsider whether diagnostic criteria for a continuous metric such as ovarian response should be based on meeting all-or-nothing thresholds for specific parameters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"192-199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000950\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000950","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
综述的目的:卵巢反应不良(POR)仍然是辅助生殖技术取得成功的主要挑战。在此,我们对 POR 的两个主要分类系统进行了全面回顾,讨论了它们的优点和缺陷,评估了它们的性能,并探讨了改进这些 POR 定义的潜在途径:博洛尼亚标准是为创建一个通用的 POR 定义所做的第一次有意义的尝试。随后发布的 POSEIDON 分类系统对 POR 进行了更细致的分类,根据年龄和卵巢储备指标将患者分为四组。虽然这些标准提供了有效的咨询工具,但也存在一些局限性--没有考虑潜在的疾病、选择的临界点有些武断、评估取回的卵母细胞数量与成熟度无关--这些都凸显了对这些系统进行改进的重要性,以创建一个更有用的工具,为临床和研究目的更准确地预测卵巢反应。总结:在个性化医疗时代,是时候重新考虑卵巢反应等连续性指标的诊断标准是否应基于满足特定参数的全有或全无阈值。
Poor ovarian response classification systems in the clinical setting - time for an update?
Purpose of review: Poor ovarian response (POR) remains a key challenge to the success of assisted reproductive technology. Here, we offer a comprehensive review of the two main classification systems for POR, discussing their promises and pitfalls, evaluating their performance, and exploring potential avenues for improving upon these definitions of POR.
Recent findings: The Bologna criteria represented the first meaningful attempt to create a universal POR definition. Subsequently, the POSEIDON classification system was published to provide a more nuanced view of POR, classifying patients into four groups based on age and ovarian reserve markers. A recent study evaluated the likelihood of achieving at least one euploid embryo for transfer and found that, indeed, these classification systems are effective predictors of this outcome.While these criteria provide an effective counseling tool, several limitations - not considering underlying conditions, selecting somewhat arbitrary cutoffs, and evaluating the number of oocytes retrieved regardless of maturity - highlight the importance of improving upon these systems to create a more useful tool to more accurately predict ovarian response for clinical and research purposes.
Summary: In the era of personalized medicine, it is time to reconsider whether diagnostic criteria for a continuous metric such as ovarian response should be based on meeting all-or-nothing thresholds for specific parameters.
期刊介绍:
Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology is a bimonthly publication offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field. Each issue features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With eleven disciplines published across the year – including reproductive endocrinology, gynecologic cancer and fertility– every issue also contains annotated references detailing the merits of the most important papers.