PURPOSE: To examine treatment decisions by ophthalmologists versus reading center fluid identification from optical coherence tomography in Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT). METHODS: Fluid in 6,210 optical coherence tomography scans (598 patients) in "as needed treatment" arm of CATT Year 1 was compared with ophthalmologist's treatment: positive fluid agreement (PFA, fluid+, treatment+) and positive fluid discrepancy (PFD, fluid+, treatment-), negative fluid agreement (fluid-, treatment-) and negative fluid discrepancy (fluid-, treatment+). For PFDs, fluid location and visual acuity were characterized. RESULTS: Treatment and reading center fluid determination agreed in 72.1% (53.0% PFA, 19.1% negative fluid agreement) and disagreed in 27.9% (25.7% PFD, 2.2% negative fluid discrepancy) of visits, with no discrepancies for 20.9% of patients. Compared with PFA, PFD occurred more commonly with lower total foveal thickness (mean ± SD: 265 ± 103 PFD, 366 ± 151 μm PFA), presence of intraretinal fluid only, smaller fluid areas (PFA areas greater than twice those of PFD, P < 0.001), and greater decrease in retinal and lesion thickness. Mean acuities before, at, and after PFD were 65.8, 66.9, and 66.3 letters. CONCLUSION: Treatment decisions by ophthalmologists matched reading center fluid determination in the majority of visits. More pronounced response to treatment and smaller foci of fluid likely contributed to PFD. Positive fluid discrepancy did not have substantial impact on subsequent visual acuity.
PURPOSE: To examine treatment decisions by ophthalmologists versus reading center fluid identification from optical coherence tomography in Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT). METHODS: Fluid in 6,210 optical coherence tomography scans (598 patients) in "as needed treatment" arm of CATT Year 1 was compared with ophthalmologist's treatment: positive fluid agreement (PFA, fluid+, treatment+) and positive fluid discrepancy (PFD, fluid+, treatment-), negative fluid agreement (fluid-, treatment-) and negative fluid discrepancy (fluid-, treatment+). For PFDs, fluid location and visual acuity were characterized. RESULTS: Treatment and reading center fluid determination agreed in 72.1% (53.0% PFA, 19.1% negative fluid agreement) and disagreed in 27.9% (25.7% PFD, 2.2% negative fluid discrepancy) of visits, with no discrepancies for 20.9% of patients. Compared with PFA, PFD occurred more commonly with lower total foveal thickness (mean ± SD: 265 ± 103 PFD, 366 ± 151 μm PFA), presence of intraretinal fluid only, smaller fluid areas (PFA areas greater than twice those of PFD, P < 0.001), and greater decrease in retinal and lesion thickness. Mean acuities before, at, and after PFD were 65.8, 66.9, and 66.3 letters. CONCLUSION: Treatment decisions by ophthalmologists matched reading center fluid determination in the majority of visits. More pronounced response to treatment and smaller foci of fluid likely contributed to PFD. Positive fluid discrepancy did not have substantial impact on subsequent visual acuity.
Authors: Lihteh Wu; María A Martínez-Castellanos; Hugo Quiroz-Mercado; J Fernando Arevalo; María H Berrocal; Michel E Farah; Mauricio Maia; José A Roca; Francisco J Rodriguez Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2007-08-03 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Hajir Dadgostar; Alexandre A C M Ventura; Jeffrey Y Chung; Sumit Sharma; Peter K Kaiser Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Omesh P Gupta; Gary Shienbaum; Avni H Patel; Christopher Fecarotta; Richard S Kaiser; Carl D Regillo Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Frank G Holz; Winfried Amoaku; Juan Donate; Robyn H Guymer; Ulrich Kellner; Reinier O Schlingemann; Andreas Weichselberger; Giovanni Staurenghi Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Anne E Fung; Geeta A Lalwani; Philip J Rosenfeld; Sander R Dubovy; Stephan Michels; William J Feuer; Carmen A Puliafito; Janet L Davis; Harry W Flynn; Maria Esquiabro Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Daniel F Martin; Maureen G Maguire; Gui-shuang Ying; Juan E Grunwald; Stuart L Fine; Glenn J Jaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gui-shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen G Maguire; Glenn J Jaffe; Juan E Grunwald; Cynthia Toth; Ebenezer Daniel; Michael Klein; Dante Pieramici; John Wells; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Geeta A Lalwani; Philip J Rosenfeld; Anne E Fung; Sander R Dubovy; Stephen Michels; William Feuer; Janet L Davis; Harry W Flynn; Maria Esquiabro Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-04-18 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Leonard M Coulibaly; Stefan Sacu; Philipp Fuchs; Hrvoje Bogunovic; Georg Faustmann; Christian Unterrainer; Gregor S Reiter; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Nikhil S Patil; Andrew Mihalache; Arjan S Dhoot; Marko M Popovic; Rajeev H Muni; Peter J Kertes Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 8.253
Authors: Philipp L Müller; Bart Liefers; Tim Treis; Filipa Gomes Rodrigues; Abraham Olvera-Barrios; Bobby Paul; Narendra Dhingra; Andrew Lotery; Clare Bailey; Paul Taylor; Clarisa I Sánchez; Adnan Tufail Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Paolo Corazza; John Maddison; Paolo Bonetti; Li Guo; Vy Luong; Alan Garfinkel; Saad Younis; Maria Francesca Cordeiro Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 5.225
Authors: Konstantinos Balaskas; Winfried M Amoaku; Tomas Cudrnak; Louise M Downey; Markus Groppe; Sajjad Mahmood; Hemal Mehta; Quresh Mohamed; Bushra Mushtaq; Philip Severn; Athanasios Vardarinos; Yit C Yang Journal: Ophthalmol Ther Date: 2021-04-10
Authors: Marc Wilson; Reena Chopra; Megan Z Wilson; Charlotte Cooper; Patricia MacWilliams; Yun Liu; Ellery Wulczyn; Daniela Florea; Cían O Hughes; Alan Karthikesalingam; Hagar Khalid; Sandra Vermeirsch; Luke Nicholson; Pearse A Keane; Konstantinos Balaskas; Christopher J Kelly Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389