Adriano Carnevali1, Maria Vittoria Cicinelli2, Vittorio Capuano3, Federico Corvi2, Andrea Mazzaferro2, Lea Querques2, Vincenzo Scorcia4, Eric H Souied3, Francesco Bandello2, Giuseppe Querques5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Vita-Salute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Department of Ophthalmology, University of "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University Vita-Salute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Université Paris Est Créteil, Créteil, France. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, University Vita-Salute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: giuseppe.querques@hotmail.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) features of treatment-naïve quiescent choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration, and to estimate the detection rate for neovascularization by means of OCT-A. DESIGN: Diagnostic tool validity assessment. METHODS: Treatment-naïve quiescent CNV were identified from a pool of patients at 2 retina referral centers. Patients underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination including fluorescein angiography, indocyanine green angiography, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, and OCT-A. Detection rates of CNV by means of OCT-A were estimated with a second cohort of patients without CNV (negative controls). RESULTS: Twenty-two eyes of 20 consecutive patients with quiescent CNV were included. In 4 out of 22 eyes it was not possible to classify the CNV "shape," "core," "margin," and "location," either because the vascular network was not clearly shown (3 cases) or because it was not visible at all (1 case). CNV shape on OCT-A was rated as circular in 8 eyes and irregular in 10 eyes. CNV core was visible in 2 eyes. CNV margin was considered as well defined in 15 eyes and poorly defined in 3 eyes. CNV margin showed small loops in 9 eyes and large loops in the other 6 eyes. CNV location was foveal-sparing in 12 eyes. Sensitivity and specificity of quiescent CNV detection by OCT-A turned out to be 81.8% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OCT-A allows the clinician to noninvasively identify treatment-naïve quiescent CNV and may be considered as a useful tool to guide the frequency of return visits and, possibly, make treatment decisions.
PURPOSE: To describe the optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) features of treatment-naïve quiescent choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration, and to estimate the detection rate for neovascularization by means of OCT-A. DESIGN: Diagnostic tool validity assessment. METHODS: Treatment-naïve quiescent CNV were identified from a pool of patients at 2 retina referral centers. Patients underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination including fluorescein angiography, indocyanine green angiography, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, and OCT-A. Detection rates of CNV by means of OCT-A were estimated with a second cohort of patients without CNV (negative controls). RESULTS: Twenty-two eyes of 20 consecutive patients with quiescent CNV were included. In 4 out of 22 eyes it was not possible to classify the CNV "shape," "core," "margin," and "location," either because the vascular network was not clearly shown (3 cases) or because it was not visible at all (1 case). CNV shape on OCT-A was rated as circular in 8 eyes and irregular in 10 eyes. CNV core was visible in 2 eyes. CNV margin was considered as well defined in 15 eyes and poorly defined in 3 eyes. CNV margin showed small loops in 9 eyes and large loops in the other 6 eyes. CNV location was foveal-sparing in 12 eyes. Sensitivity and specificity of quiescent CNV detection by OCT-A turned out to be 81.8% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OCT-A allows the clinician to noninvasively identify treatment-naïve quiescent CNV and may be considered as a useful tool to guide the frequency of return visits and, possibly, make treatment decisions.
Authors: Yasuo Yanagi; Aditi Mohla; Shu Yen Lee; Ranjana Mathur; Choi Mun Chan; Ian Yeo; Tien Yin Wong; Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Ambar Faridi; Yali Jia; Simon S Gao; David Huang; Kavita V Bhavsar; David J Wilson; Andrew Sill; Christina J Flaxel; Thomas S Hwang; Andreas K Lauer; Steven T Bailey Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2017 Jul-Aug