PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between color fundus photographs (CFP) and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images when measuring geographic atrophy (GA) area and reproducibility of measurements between graders. Frequency and disagreement types were also determined. METHODS: Eyes with GA secondary to age-related macular degeneration had CFP and FAF imaging on the same day. Seventy-two eyes from 72 patients were included in the analysis. Three graders calculated GA area using digital imaging software. Main outcome measures included agreement between graders for GA area on both FAF and CFP and agreement between both imaging modalities. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation for the 3 graders for FAF images was 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-0.99). For CFP, it was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.97). The intraclass correlation between imaging modalities for Graders 1, 2, and 3 were 0.93, 0.85, and 0.87, respectively. Sensitivities to detect involvement of fovea (CFP, 86-97%; FAF, 72-93%) and specificities to detect sparing of fovea (CFP, 74-76%; FAF, 59-88%) overlapped between imaging modalities. CONCLUSION: Both CFP and FAF imaging are reliable for measuring GA area. Interobserver agreement was slightly higher for FAF images. Although the high agreement between modalities suggests that either would be appropriate for measuring GA area, using both may be the best approach for following GA progression.
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between color fundus photographs (CFP) and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images when measuring geographic atrophy (GA) area and reproducibility of measurements between graders. Frequency and disagreement types were also determined. METHODS: Eyes with GA secondary to age-related macular degeneration had CFP and FAF imaging on the same day. Seventy-two eyes from 72 patients were included in the analysis. Three graders calculated GA area using digital imaging software. Main outcome measures included agreement between graders for GA area on both FAF and CFP and agreement between both imaging modalities. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation for the 3 graders for FAF images was 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-0.99). For CFP, it was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.97). The intraclass correlation between imaging modalities for Graders 1, 2, and 3 were 0.93, 0.85, and 0.87, respectively. Sensitivities to detect involvement of fovea (CFP, 86-97%; FAF, 72-93%) and specificities to detect sparing of fovea (CFP, 74-76%; FAF, 59-88%) overlapped between imaging modalities. CONCLUSION: Both CFP and FAF imaging are reliable for measuring GA area. Interobserver agreement was slightly higher for FAF images. Although the high agreement between modalities suggests that either would be appropriate for measuring GA area, using both may be the best approach for following GA progression.
Authors: Almut Bindewald; Alan C Bird; Samantha S Dandekar; Joanna Dolar-Szczasny; Jens Dreyhaupt; Frederick W Fitzke; Wilma Einbock; Frank G Holz; Jork J Jorzik; Claudia Keilhauer; Noemi Lois; Juliane Mlynski; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Giovanni Staurenghi; Sebastian Wolf Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: A Bindewald; S Schmitz-Valckenberg; J J Jorzik; J Dolar-Szczasny; H Sieber; C Keilhauer; A W A Weinberger; S Dithmar; D Pauleikhoff; U Mansmann; S Wolf; F G Holz Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Almut Bindewald-Wittich; Joanna Dolar-Szczasny; Jens Dreyhaupt; Sebastian Wolf; Hendrik P N Scholl; Frank G Holz Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Wilma Einbock; Andreas Moessner; Ute E K Schnurrbusch; Frank G Holz; Sebastian Wolf Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2004-10-13 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Noemi Lois; Sarah L Owens; Rosa Coco; Jill Hopkins; Frederick W Fitzke; Alan C Bird Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Anne S Lindblad; Patricia C Lloyd; Traci E Clemons; Gary R Gensler; Frederick L Ferris; Michael L Klein; Jane R Armstrong Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09
Authors: Alisa T Thavikulwat; Naima Jacobs-El; Jane S Kim; Elvira Agrón; Jesia Hasan; Catherine B Meyerle; David Valent; Catherine A Cukras; Henry E Wiley; Wai T Wong; Emily Y Chew Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2017 Jan-Feb
Authors: Athanasios Panorgias; Robert J Zawadzki; Arlie G Capps; Allan A Hunter; Lawrence S Morse; John S Werner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Marcela Marsiglia; Sucharita Boddu; Srilaxmi Bearelly; Luna Xu; Barry E Breaux; K Bailey Freund; Lawrence A Yannuzzi; R Theodore Smith Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Tiarnan D Keenan; Elvira Agrón; Amitha Domalpally; Traci E Clemons; Freekje van Asten; Wai T Wong; Ronald G Danis; SriniVas Sadda; Philip J Rosenfeld; Michael L Klein; Rinki Ratnapriya; Anand Swaroop; Frederick L Ferris; Emily Y Chew Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: SriniVas R Sadda; Usha Chakravarthy; David G Birch; Giovanni Staurenghi; Erin C Henry; Christopher Brittain Journal: Retina Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Luna Xu; Anna M Blonska; Nicole M Pumariega; Srilaxmi Bearelly; Mahsa A Sohrab; Gregory S Hageman; R Theodore Smith Journal: Retina Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.256