Joseph Ho1, Mehreen Adhi, Caroline Baumal, Jonathan Liu, James G Fujimoto, Jay S Duker, Nadia K Waheed. 1. *Department of Ophthalmology, New England Eye Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and †Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement and reproducibility of retinal pigment epithelial detachment (RPED) volumetric measurements using a commercially available optical coherence tomography software available for the Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT. METHODS: Twelve eyes of 10 patients with a diagnosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration with RPED, seen at the New England Eye Center between October 2012 and December 2012, were enrolled in the study. Three separate scans per affected eye were obtained using the "Macular Cube 512 × 128" protocol. "Retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) elevation analysis" software was used to measure RPED volumes in the central 3-mm and 5-mm circles by calculating the volume between the "RPE fit" and "true RPE" lines. All 128 raster scans for each eye were exported into the AMIRA software for manual segmentation of RPED volumes in the central 3-mm and 5-mm circles. Interscan reproducibility and manual-to-automated agreement were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient. Incidence of automated segmentation line error for both RPE fit and true RPE lines in the central 1 mm region was calculated. RESULTS: Average RPED volumes through automated segmentation software were 0.14 mm3 and 0.21 mm3 in the central 3-mm and 5-mm circles, respectively. Manual segmentation yielded average RPED volumes of 0.50 mm3 in the 3-mm circles and 0.92 mm3 in the 5-mm circles. Manual segmentation yielded significantly greater RPED volumes compared with automated measurements (P < 0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients across the 3 automated measurements were 0.954 and 0.983 for volume in the 3-mm and 5-mm circles, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients between the manual and automatic volumes were 0.296 and 0.337 for the 3-mm and 5-mm circles, respectively. In the central 1 mm region, 11 of the 12 scans had breakdown in RPE fit line, whereas 8 of the 12 scans showed true RPE line breakdown. CONCLUSION: Automated "RPED elevation" software demonstrated high interscan reproducibility. However, it showed low agreement with manual measurements from high rates of segmentation line breakdown, especially at the level of the RPE fit line (91.7%). Manual measurements resulted in greater volumes compared with automated measurements.
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement and reproducibility of retinal pigment epithelial detachment (RPED) volumetric measurements using a commercially available optical coherence tomography software available for the Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT. METHODS: Twelve eyes of 10 patients with a diagnosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration with RPED, seen at the New England Eye Center between October 2012 and December 2012, were enrolled in the study. Three separate scans per affected eye were obtained using the "Macular Cube 512 × 128" protocol. "Retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) elevation analysis" software was used to measure RPED volumes in the central 3-mm and 5-mm circles by calculating the volume between the "RPE fit" and "true RPE" lines. All 128 raster scans for each eye were exported into the AMIRA software for manual segmentation of RPED volumes in the central 3-mm and 5-mm circles. Interscan reproducibility and manual-to-automated agreement were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient. Incidence of automated segmentation line error for both RPE fit and true RPE lines in the central 1 mm region was calculated. RESULTS: Average RPED volumes through automated segmentation software were 0.14 mm3 and 0.21 mm3 in the central 3-mm and 5-mm circles, respectively. Manual segmentation yielded average RPED volumes of 0.50 mm3 in the 3-mm circles and 0.92 mm3 in the 5-mm circles. Manual segmentation yielded significantly greater RPED volumes compared with automated measurements (P < 0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients across the 3 automated measurements were 0.954 and 0.983 for volume in the 3-mm and 5-mm circles, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients between the manual and automatic volumes were 0.296 and 0.337 for the 3-mm and 5-mm circles, respectively. In the central 1 mm region, 11 of the 12 scans had breakdown in RPE fit line, whereas 8 of the 12 scans showed true RPE line breakdown. CONCLUSION: Automated "RPED elevation" software demonstrated high interscan reproducibility. However, it showed low agreement with manual measurements from high rates of segmentation line breakdown, especially at the level of the RPE fit line (91.7%). Manual measurements resulted in greater volumes compared with automated measurements.
Authors: Jason A Goldsmith; Yan Li; Maria Regina Chalita; Volker Westphal; Chetan A Patil; Andrew M Rollins; Joseph A Izatt; David Huang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jianhua Wang; Mohamed Abou Shousha; Victor L Perez; Carol L Karp; Sonia H Yoo; Meixiao Shen; Lele Cui; Volkan Hurmeric; Chixin Du; Dexi Zhu; Qi Chen; Ming Li Journal: Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Date: 2011-07
Authors: Fernando M Penha; Philip J Rosenfeld; Giovanni Gregori; Manuel Falcão; Zohar Yehoshua; Fenghua Wang; William J Feuer Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: L Pieroth; J S Schuman; E Hertzmark; M R Hee; J R Wilkins; J Coker; C Mattox; R Pedut-Kloizman; C A Puliafito; J G Fujimoto; E Swanson Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Sun Young Lee; Paul F Stetson; Humberto Ruiz-Garcia; Florian M Heussen; SriniVas R Sadda Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: C Ahlers; C Simader; W Geitzenauer; G Stock; P Stetson; S Dastmalchi; U Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-10-26 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Yueli Chen; Laurel N Vuong; Jonathan Liu; Joseph Ho; Vivek J Srinivasan; Iwona Gorczynska; Andre J Witkin; Jay S Duker; Joel Schuman; James G Fujimoto Journal: Opt Express Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Andre J Witkin; Laurel N Vuong; Vivek J Srinivasan; Iwona Gorczynska; Elias Reichel; Caroline R Baumal; Adam H Rogers; Joel S Schuman; James G Fujimoto; Jay S Duker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Peter M Maloca; Aaron Y Lee; Emanuel R de Carvalho; Mali Okada; Katrin Fasler; Irene Leung; Beat Hörmann; Pascal Kaiser; Susanne Suter; Pascal W Hasler; Javier Zarranz-Ventura; Catherine Egan; Tjebo F C Heeren; Konstantinos Balaskas; Adnan Tufail; Hendrik P N Scholl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maximilian W M Wintergerst; Thomas Schultz; Johannes Birtel; Alexander K Schuster; Norbert Pfeiffer; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Johanna M Seddon; James P Dossett; Rafael Widjajahakim; Bernard Rosner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 4.799