Maiko Inoue1, Jesse J Jung2, Chandrakumar Balaratnasingam3, Kunal K Dansingani3, Elona Dhrami-Gavazi2, Mihoko Suzuki3, Talisa E de Carlo4, Abtin Shahlaee5, Michael A Klufas6, Adil El Maftouhi7, Jay S Duker8, Allen C Ho5, Maddalena Quaranta-El Maftouhi7, David Sarraf6, K Bailey Freund9. 1. Vitreous Retina Macula Consultants of New York, New York, New York, United States 2The LuEsther T. Mertz Retinal Research Center, Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, New York, New York, United States 3Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama. 2. Vitreous Retina Macula Consultants of New York, New York, New York, United States 2The LuEsther T. Mertz Retinal Research Center, Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, New York, New York, United States 4Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia Univers. 3. Vitreous Retina Macula Consultants of New York, New York, New York, United States 2The LuEsther T. Mertz Retinal Research Center, Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, New York, New York, United States. 4. New England Eye Center and Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States 7Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massa. 5. Mid Atlantic Retina, The Retina Service of Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, United States 10Stein Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States. 7. Centre Ophtalmologique Rabelais, Lyon, France. 8. New England Eye Center and Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 9. Vitreous Retina Macula Consultants of New York, New York, New York, United States 2The LuEsther T. Mertz Retinal Research Center, Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, New York, New York, United States 12Department of Ophthalmology, New York University.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of the combination of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and structural optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detecting type 1 neovascularization (NV) and to determine significant factors that preclude visualization of type 1 NV using OCTA. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 115 eyes from 100 patients with type 1 NV. A retrospective review of fluorescein (FA), OCT, and OCTA imaging was performed on a consecutive series of eyes with type 1 NV from five institutions. Unmasked graders utilized FA and structural OCT data to determine the diagnosis of type 1 NV. Masked graders evaluated FA data alone, en face OCTA data alone and combined en face OCTA and structural OCT data to determine the presence of type 1 NV. Sensitivity analyses were performed using combined FA and OCT data as the reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 105 eyes were diagnosed with type 1 NV using the reference. Of these, 90 (85.7%) could be detected using en face OCTA and structural OCT. The sensitivities of FA data alone and en face OCTA data alone for visualizing type 1 NV were the same (66.7%). Significant factors that precluded visualization of NV using en face OCTA included the height of pigment epithelial detachment, low signal strength, and treatment-naïve disease (P < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: En face OCTA and structural OCT showed better detection of type 1 NV than either FA alone or en face OCTA alone. Combining en face OCTA and structural OCT information may therefore be a useful way to noninvasively diagnose and monitor the treatment of type 1 NV.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity of the combination of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and structural optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detecting type 1 neovascularization (NV) and to determine significant factors that preclude visualization of type 1 NV using OCTA. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 115 eyes from 100 patients with type 1 NV. A retrospective review of fluorescein (FA), OCT, and OCTA imaging was performed on a consecutive series of eyes with type 1 NV from five institutions. Unmasked graders utilized FA and structural OCT data to determine the diagnosis of type 1 NV. Masked graders evaluated FA data alone, en face OCTA data alone and combined en face OCTA and structural OCT data to determine the presence of type 1 NV. Sensitivity analyses were performed using combined FA and OCT data as the reference standard. RESULTS: A total of 105 eyes were diagnosed with type 1 NV using the reference. Of these, 90 (85.7%) could be detected using en face OCTA and structural OCT. The sensitivities of FA data alone and en face OCTA data alone for visualizing type 1 NV were the same (66.7%). Significant factors that precluded visualization of NV using en face OCTA included the height of pigment epithelial detachment, low signal strength, and treatment-naïve disease (P < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: En face OCTA and structural OCT showed better detection of type 1 NV than either FA alone or en face OCTA alone. Combining en face OCTA and structural OCT information may therefore be a useful way to noninvasively diagnose and monitor the treatment of type 1 NV.
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
Authors: Amir H Kashani; Chieh-Li Chen; Jin K Gahm; Fang Zheng; Grace M Richter; Philip J Rosenfeld; Yonggang Shi; Ruikang K Wang Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Marcus Ang; Anna C S Tan; Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung; Pearse A Keane; Rosa Dolz-Marco; Chelvin C A Sng; Leopold Schmetterer Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: A C S Tan; G S Tan; A K Denniston; P A Keane; M Ang; D Milea; U Chakravarthy; C M G Cheung Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 3.775