PURPOSE: The advent of macular optical coherence tomography (OCT) segmentation has enabled the in vivo quantitative assessment of retinal axonal and neuronal subpopulations. Recent studies employing OCT in multiple sclerosis (MS) have utilized various manual macular segmentation approaches to quantify retinal layer thicknesses. We investigated whether measurements of retinal layers solely at the points of maximal macular thickness (point estimates) within the central macular B-scan are representative of the corresponding average layer thicknesses for the ganglion cell + inner plexiform (GCIP) layers, inner nuclear layer (INL), outer plexiform layer (OPL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) in MS and healthy controls. Additionally, we examined the correlation of manual segmentation-derived measures of composite layers with average thickness measures derived from automated 3-D segmentation of the macular cube. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spectral-domain OCT central macular B-scans of 52 MS patients and 30 healthy controls (HCs) were manually segmented. Average layer thicknesses and layer thicknesses at the points of maximal macular thickness were calculated. Macular cube scans were also segmented utilizing a fully automated 3-D segmentation algorithm. RESULTS: GCIP, INL and OPL maximal thicknesses derived from point estimates correlated well with the average thicknesses of these layers within the central macular B-scan, whereas the ONL maximal thickness did not correlate as strongly. Manual segmentation-derived point estimates and average thickness measures of the GCIP correlated excellently with corresponding automated segmentation-derived measures. MS patients had significantly decreased GCIP maximal and average thicknesses relative to HCs. ONL average thickness was significantly decreased in MS compared to HCs, but this was not true of the ONL maximal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: GCIP, INL and OPL maximal layer thicknesses may be used as surrogates to assess the gross structural integrity of these layers in MS, in a time-conservative fashion.
PURPOSE: The advent of macular optical coherence tomography (OCT) segmentation has enabled the in vivo quantitative assessment of retinal axonal and neuronal subpopulations. Recent studies employing OCT in multiple sclerosis (MS) have utilized various manual macular segmentation approaches to quantify retinal layer thicknesses. We investigated whether measurements of retinal layers solely at the points of maximal macular thickness (point estimates) within the central macular B-scan are representative of the corresponding average layer thicknesses for the ganglion cell + inner plexiform (GCIP) layers, inner nuclear layer (INL), outer plexiform layer (OPL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) in MS and healthy controls. Additionally, we examined the correlation of manual segmentation-derived measures of composite layers with average thickness measures derived from automated 3-D segmentation of the macular cube. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spectral-domain OCT central macular B-scans of 52 MSpatients and 30 healthy controls (HCs) were manually segmented. Average layer thicknesses and layer thicknesses at the points of maximal macular thickness were calculated. Macular cube scans were also segmented utilizing a fully automated 3-D segmentation algorithm. RESULTS: GCIP, INL and OPL maximal thicknesses derived from point estimates correlated well with the average thicknesses of these layers within the central macular B-scan, whereas the ONL maximal thickness did not correlate as strongly. Manual segmentation-derived point estimates and average thickness measures of the GCIP correlated excellently with corresponding automated segmentation-derived measures. MSpatients had significantly decreased GCIP maximal and average thicknesses relative to HCs. ONL average thickness was significantly decreased in MS compared to HCs, but this was not true of the ONL maximal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: GCIP, INL and OPL maximal layer thicknesses may be used as surrogates to assess the gross structural integrity of these layers in MS, in a time-conservative fashion.
Authors: Michaela A Seigo; Elias S Sotirchos; Scott Newsome; Aleksandra Babiarz; Christopher Eckstein; E'tona Ford; Jonathan D Oakley; Stephanie B Syc; Teresa C Frohman; John N Ratchford; Laura J Balcer; Elliot M Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Shiv Saidha Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Scott D Walter; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Kristin M Galetta; Reiko E Sakai; Daniel J Feller; Sam B Henderson; James A Wilson; Maureen G Maguire; Steven L Galetta; Elliot Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Joel S Schuman; Laura J Balcer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Gwénolé Quellec; Kyungmoo Lee; Martin Dolejsi; Mona K Garvin; Michael D Abràmoff; Milan Sonka Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Shiv Saidha; Stephanie B Syc; Mary K Durbin; Christopher Eckstein; Jonathan D Oakley; Scott A Meyer; Amy Conger; Teresa C Frohman; Scott Newsome; John N Ratchford; Elliot M Frohman; Peter A Calabresi Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Stephanie J Chiu; Xiao T Li; Peter Nicholas; Cynthia A Toth; Joseph A Izatt; Sina Farsiu Journal: Opt Express Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Philipp Albrecht; Ann-Kristin Müller; Martin Südmeyer; Stefano Ferrea; Marius Ringelstein; Eva Cohn; Orhan Aktas; Thomas Dietlein; Alexandra Lappas; Andreas Foerster; Hans-Peter Hartung; Alfons Schnitzler; Axel Methner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gema Rebolleda; Laura Diez-Alvarez; Alfonso Casado; Carmen Sánchez-Sánchez; Elisabet de Dompablo; Julio J González-López; Francisco J Muñoz-Negrete Journal: Saudi J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-10-05
Authors: Natalia Gonzalez Caldito; Bhavna Antony; Yufan He; Andrew Lang; James Nguyen; Alissa Rothman; Esther Ogbuokiri; Ama Avornu; Laura Balcer; Elliot Frohman; Teresa C Frohman; Pavan Bhargava; Jerry Prince; Peter A Calabresi; Shiv Saidha Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Timm Oberwahrenbrock; Maria Weinhold; Janine Mikolajczak; Hanna Zimmermann; Friedemann Paul; Ingeborg Beckers; Alexander U Brandt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 3.240