Effect of adjuvant endocrine therapy on hormonal levels in premenopausal women with breast cancer: the ProBONE II study

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Ovarian Reserve after Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Worldwide, breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in the female population. In recent years, its diagnosis in young women has increased, together with a growing desire to become pregnant later in life. Although there is evidence about the detrimental effect of chemotherapy (CT) on the menses cycle, a practical tool to measure ovarian reserve is still missing. Recently, anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) has been considered a good surrogate for ovarian reserve. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the effect of CT on AMH value.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on the PubMed and Scopus electronic databases on articles retrieved from inception until February 2021. Trials evaluating ovarian reserves before and after CT in BC were included. We excluded case reports, case-series with fewer than ten patients, reviews (narrative or systematic), communications and perspectives. Studies in languages other than English or with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) patients were also excluded. AMH reduction was the main endpoint. Egger's and Begg's tests were used to assess the risk of publication bias.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials were included from the 833 examined. A statistically significant decline in serum AMH concentration was found after CT, persisting even after years, with an overall reduction of -1.97 (95% CI: -3.12, -0.82). No significant differences in ovarian reserve loss were found in the BRCA1/2 mutation carriers compared to wild-type patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study has some limitations, including publication bias, failure to stratify the results by some important factors and low to medium quality of the studies included, this metanalysis demonstrates that the level of AMH markedly falls after CT in BC patients, corresponding to a reduction in ovarian reserve. These findings should be routinely discussed during oncofertility counseling and used to guide fertility preservation choices in young women before starting treatment.

Management of Osteoporosis in Survivors of Adult Cancers With Nonmetastatic Disease: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based guidance on the management of osteoporosis in survivors of adult cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to develop guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The literature search of the 2018 systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force in the noncancer population was used as the evidentiary base upon which the Expert Panel based many of its recommendations. A total of 61 additional studies on topics and populations not covered in the US Preventive Services Task Force review were also included. Patients with cancer with metastatic disease and cancer survival outcomes related to bone-modifying agents are not included in this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients with nonmetastatic cancer may be at risk for osteoporotic fractures due to baseline risks or due to the added risks that are associated with their cancer therapy. Clinicians are advised to assess fracture risk using established tools. For those patients with substantial risk of osteoporotic fracture, the clinician should obtain a bone mineral density test. The bone health of all patients may benefit from optimizing nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle. When a pharmacologic agent is indicated, bisphosphonates or denosumab at osteoporosis-indicated dosages are the preferred interventions.

Vitamin D Resists Cyclophosphamide-Induced Genomic and DNA Damage in CHL Cells In Vitro and in Mice In Vivo

Vitamin D as an adjuvant therapy for cancer patients is hoped to have a beneficial outcome based on its physiological activity, but clinical trials so far by addition of vitamin D show unremarkable curative improvement, mechanism for explain this phenomena is not well-understood. The aim of this study was to determine whether vitamin D resists cyclophosphamide (CP)-induced genomic and DNA damage. In CHL cells in vitro, 1α,25-(OH)₂D₃ at 10, 50, and 100 nM was found to alleviate the frequency of chromosomal aberration with an alleviation range of 40.7-44.0%. There was a dose-dependent decrease for a proportion of γ-H2AX foci positive cells in response to an increase in 1α,25-(OH)₂D₃ concentration. Two vitamin D₃ injections of 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 IU suppressed CP-induced micronucleus formation in mice BMCs with an alleviation range of 36.7-44.5%, mitigated lymphocytes DNA damage reflected by lower tail DNA, tail length and olive tail moment parameter in comet assay. Vitamin D showed an antagonistic effect on CP-induced genomic and DNA damage. Our data suggest that vitamin D as an adjuvant combine antineoplastic drug with genotoxicity administer to tumor patients is contraindicant.

Prevention of breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss in premenopausal women treated with zoledronic acid: Final 5-year results from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ProBONE II trial

PURPOSE

Premenopausal women receiving chemotherapy or endocrine treatment for early breast cancer are at increased risk for cancer treatment induced bone loss (CTIBL). The aim of the randomized, double-blind ProBONE II trial was to investigate whether a 2-year adjuvant treatment with 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid (ZOL) every 3 months versus placebo would prevent CTIBL after a five-year period.

METHODS

Thirty-one of the 34 participants in the ZOL arm and thirty-four of the 36 participants in the placebo arm were followed-up to the 5-year visit and completed the study as planned. The changes in Bone Mass Density (BMD) were assessed at baseline and each visit after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

After 24 months, BMD at the lumbar spine showed a 2.9% increase in patients treated with ZOL vs. a 7.1% decrease in placebo-treated participants compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Over the 60-month study period, we found a decrease of 2.2% vs. 7.3% in the BMD at the lumbar spine in patients receiving ZOL and placebo respectively (p < 0.001). Over the 60-month study period, BMD in the placebo arm showed a continuous decrease at all sites (p < 0001), whereas patients treated with ZOL reached baseline BMD-values at the femoral neck and total hip.

CONCLUSIONS

In ProBone II, a 2-year treatment with ZOL 4 mg intravenous every 3 months prevented cancer treatment induced bone loss in premenopausal women with breast cancer and maintained the BMD up to 3 years post-treatment.

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).

SEARCH METHODS

In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To make recommendations regarding the use of bisphosphonates and other bone-modifying agents as adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. Methods Cancer Care Ontario and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. Results Adjuvant bisphosphonates were found to reduce bone recurrence and improve survival in postmenopausal patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. In this guideline, postmenopausal includes patients with natural menopause or that induced by ovarian suppression or ablation. Absolute benefit is greater in patients who are at higher risk of recurrence, and almost all trials were conducted in patients who also received systemic therapy. Most studies evaluated zoledronic acid or clodronate, and data are extremely limited for other bisphosphonates. While denosumab was found to reduce fractures, long-term survival data are still required. Recommendations It is recommended that, if available, zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) or clodronate (1,600 mg/d orally) be considered as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who are deemed candidates for adjuvant systemic therapy. Further research comparing different bone-modifying agents, doses, dosing intervals, and durations is required. Risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal impairment should be assessed, and any pending dental or oral health problems should be dealt with prior to starting treatment. Data for adjuvant denosumab look promising but are currently insufficient to make any recommendation. Use of these agents to reduce fragility fractures in patients with low bone mineral density is beyond the scope of the guideline. Recommendations are not meant to restrict such use of bone-modifying agents in these situations. Additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-adjuvant-bisphosphonates-guideline , www.asco.org/guidelineswiki , https://www.cancercareontario.ca/guidelines-advice/types-of-cancer/breast .

Anti-müllerian hormone levels and evolution in women of reproductive age with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Long-term consequences of cancer treatments in young women, and especially fertility issues, are gaining attention as survival rates increase. Breast cancer is the most frequent malignancy in women of reproductive age.

AIM

The purpose of this review is to describe serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) level at diagnosis and its evolution during and after chemotherapy in women of reproductive age treated for breast cancer. Second, the impact of taxanes on AMH, the association between AMH and amenorrhea, and the comparison of AMH with other hormonal markers of ovarian reserve were studied.

METHODS

A systematic PubMed search was conducted on all articles, published up to April 2016 and related to AMH in women suffering from breast cancer using the following key words: AMH, müllerian-inhibiting substance, ovarian reserve, ovarian function, breast cancer, gonadotoxicity, ovarian toxicity, amenorrhea, chemotherapy, and menopause.

RESULTS

AMH levels rapidly fall down to undetectable levels in most women during chemotherapy and generally persist at very low levels in most women after the treatment. Taxanes seem to impact negatively ovarian function, but data on ovarian reserve are scarce. AMH is a predictor of the occurrence of chemotherapy-related amenorrhea and is the most relevant hormonal marker of ovarian reserve.

CONCLUSION

Serum AMH is a relevant tool for ovarian reserve assessment and follow-up during treatment in premenopausal women with breast cancer. Further large prospective studies are necessary to determine its predictive interest for post-treatment residual fertility, and eventually use it in fertility preservation counseling before treatment initiation.

Diurnal Variation of Hormonal and Lipid Biomarkers in a Molecular Epidemiology-Like Setting

Introduction

Many molecular epidemiology studies focusing on high prevalent diseases, such as metabolic disorders and cancer, investigate metabolic and hormonal markers. In general, sampling for these markers can occur at any time-point during the day or after an overnight fast. However, environmental factors, such as light exposure and food intake might affect the levels of these markers, since they provide input for the internal time-keeping system. When diurnal variation is larger than the inter-individual variation, time of day should be taken into account. Importantly, heterogeneity in diurnal variation and disturbance of circadian rhythms among a study population might increasingly occur as a result of our increasing 24/7 economy and related variation in exposure to environmental factors (such as light and food).

Aim

The aim of the present study was to determine whether a set of often used biomarkers shows diurnal variation in a setting resembling large molecular epidemiology studies, i.e., non-fasted and limited control possibilities for other environmental influences.

Results

We show that markers for which diurnal variation is not an issue are adrenocorticotropic hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol and high-density lipoprotein. For all other tested markers diurnal variation was observed in at least one gender (cholesterol, cortisol, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, free fatty acids, low-density lipoprotein, luteinizing hormone, prolactin, progesterone, testosterone, triglycerides, total triiodothyronine and thyroid-stimulating hormone) or could not reliably be detected (human growth hormone).

Discussion

Thus, studies investigating these markers should take diurnal variation into account, for which we provide some options. Furthermore, our study indicates the need for investigating diurnal variation (in literature or experimentally) before setting up studies measuring markers in routine and controlled settings, especially since time-of-day likely matters for many more markers than the ones investigated in the present study.

Maximizing the clinical utility of antimüllerian hormone testing in women's health

Purpose of review

To provide an update on the latest clinical applications of serum antimüllerian hormone (AMH) testing with practical approaches to mitigate the impact of significant variability in AMH results.

Recent findings

Recent studies continue to demonstrate that AMH is the best single serum test for ovarian response management with, at most, a weak-to-moderate age-independent association with live-birth rate and time to conception. Data confirm serum AMH levels improve menopause prediction, monitoring of ovarian damage, and identification of women at risk for several ovary-related disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome and premature or primary ovarian insufficiency. However, it is now recognized that serum AMH results can have dramatic variability due to common, biologic fluctuations within some individuals, use of hormonal contraceptives or other medications, certain surgical procedures, specimen treatment, assay changes, and laboratory calibration differences. Practical guidelines are provided to minimize the impact of variability in AMH results and maximize the accuracy of clinical decision-making.

Summary

AMH is an ovarian biomarker of central importance which improves the clinical management of women's health. However, with the simultaneous rapid expansion of AMH clinical applications and recognition of variability in AMH results, consensus regarding the clinical cutpoints is increasingly difficult. Therefore, a careful approach to AMH measurement and interpretation in clinical care is essential.