| Literature DB >> 27067098 |
Sarah Zbinden1, Şerife Seda Kucur2, Patrick Steiner1, Sebastian Wolf3, Raphael Sznitman1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In recent years, selective retina laser treatment (SRT), a sub-threshold therapy method, avoids widespread damage to all retinal layers by targeting only a few. While these methods facilitate faster healing, their lack of visual feedback during treatment represents a considerable shortcoming as induced lesions remain invisible with conventional imaging and make clinical use challenging. To overcome this, we present a new strategy to provide location-specific and contact-free automatic feedback of SRT laser applications.Entities:
Keywords: Computer-assisted intervention; Feature design; Retinal laser therapy; Time-resolved OCT; Treatment outcome estimation
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27067098 PMCID: PMC4893370 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-016-1383-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg ISSN: 1861-6410 Impact factor: 2.924
Fig. 1SRT lesions in a color fundus image and b fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) for the same eye region. With appropriate laser energies, lesions after selective retina therapy remain invisible in color fundus image while being visible in FFA (state of the art for the identification of lesions introduced by SRT)
Fig. 2Schematic setup of the combined SRT-OCT system a including the SRT treatment system and the measurement and treatment beam being combined using a dichroic mirror. Figures to the right show the time sequence of the application of five laser pulses b and the corresponding OCT M-Scan data c with visible temporal signal variations marked with white arrows
Fig. 3Overview of the proposed features. These include blockwise analysis of M-Scans, speckle variance features, and spectrogram features. See text for details on how these are computed
Fig. 4Figure showing 60 ms extracts of examples for manually labeled M-Scans. Figure a shows an ex vivo OCT M-Scan with no detectable signal variations labeled as class “0.” b and c show M-Scans with detectable signal variations limited to the RPE/Bruch’s membrane complex and throughout the retina, respectively. Scans b and c were consequently labeled as class “1”
Fig. 5a ROC curve of our algorithm on ex vivo data. The AUC is 0.996, and the arrow indicates the threshold value for 95 % specificity used for clinical evaluation of the classification performance. b ROC curves showing the performance comparison for different subsets of used features (ex vivo data)
Fig. 6a Algorithm performance depending on the duration of laser application and b the subdivision of an M-Scan
Performance analysis of the classification algorithm on clinical in vivo SRT data
| Laser energy [ | FFA label | OCT label | Classification 100 % specificity | Classification 95 % specificity | Classification 100 % sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 120 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 80 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 80 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| 80 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 80 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 80 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 1 |
| 80 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 120 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 60 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 80 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Accuracy (%) | 87.5 | 81.3 | 93.8 | 81.3 | |
Classifications were evaluated for 100 and 95 % specificity as well as for 100 % sensitivity. Classification results and the manual labeling were compared to the FFA visibility as assessed by the attending ophthalmologist. Classification performance was best for 95 % specificity, and false results are highlighted in italics