| Literature DB >> 27557112 |
Naoko Takada1, Kazuko Omodaka1,2, Tsutomu Kikawa3, Airi Takagi4, Akiko Matsumoto3, Yu Yokoyama1, Yukihiro Shiga1, Kazuichi Maruyama1, Hidetoshi Takahashi1, Masahiro Akiba3, Toru Nakazawa1,5,6,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To objectively classify the optic discs of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) patients into Nicolela's four disc types, i.e., focal ischemic (FI), myopic (MY), senile sclerotic (SS), and generalized enlargement (GE), with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27557112 PMCID: PMC4996503 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160226
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clinical characteristics of patients by disc type.
| All | FI | MY | SS | GE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 113 | n = 28 | n = 30 | n = 29 | n = 26 | ||
| 49 / 64 | 8 / 20 | 15 / 15 | 12 / 17 | 14 / 12 | 0.238 | |
| 62.5 ± 12.6 | 56.3 ± 12.4 | 58.9 ± 12.2 | 70.6 ± 10.9 | 64.3 ± 9.9 | < 0.001 | |
| -2.5 ± 2.6 | -2.7 ± 2.7 | -3.9 ± 2.4 | -1.5 ± 1.9 | -1.5 ± 2.4 | 0.001 | |
| -9.4 ± 7.3 | -7.8 ± 6.2 | -9.0 ± 7.8 | -9.6 ± 7.2 | -11.3 ± 7.6 | 0.358 | |
| 13.0 ± 2.6 | 12.9 ± 1.7 | 13.1 ± 3.5 | 13.0 ± 2.3 | 13.2 ± 2.6 | 0.973 |
A total of 113 eyes were divided into four types: FI (n = 28), MY (n = 30), SS (n = 29), and GE (n = 26). Age, SE, MD, and IOP are reported as mean ± SD. The FI group was younger than the other groups and the SS group was older (P < 0.001). The MY group had a lower spherical equivalent than the other groups (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in MD or IOP (Kruskal-Wallis analysis). There were no significant differences between the groups in sex (Fisher’s exact test).
Clinical characteristics of 2 groups.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 72 | n = 60 | ||
| 34 / 38 | 31 / 29 | 1.000 | |
| 62.3 ± 13.1 | 61.8 ± 12.9 | 0.849 | |
| -2.3 ± 2.7 | -2.4 ± 2.5 | 0.812 | |
| -8.8 ± 6.6 | -8.8 ± 6.8 | 0.995 | |
| 13.5 ± 2.6 | 13.0 ± 2.5 | 0.208 |
Group 1, a training group including 72 eyes, was used in a stepwise regression analysis to identify parameters that could best discriminate optic disc type. Group 2, a validation group including 60 eyes, was used to validate these findings in a discriminant analysis. Age, SE, MD and IOP are reported as mean ± SD. The two groups had no significant differences in background (t test).
Fig 1Definition of disc parameters.
(A) The base plane was an approximation, drawn through the BMO points, which indicated disc area. The reference plane was set above the base plane at a height varying from 60 to180 μm (in 30 μm steps). Intersections of the ILM and the reference plane indicated the cup area. (B) Method for determining a vertical line against the base plane. (C) Definitions of cup area and disc area. ILM: inner limiting membrane. BMO: Bruch’s membrane opening.
Fig 2The relationship between rim area and cpRNFLT when the reference plane was set at different heights.
(Pearson’s product/moment correlation coefficient) Scatter plot showing the relationship between rim area and cpRNFLT at reference plane height of 60 (A), 90 (B), 120 (C), 150 (D), and 180 (E) μm. The highest correlation between rim area and cpRNFLT was at 120 μm in the overall group of subjects.
Fig 3The relationship between HFA MD and rim area when the reference plane was set at different heights.
(Pearson’s product/moment correlation coefficient) Scatter plot showing the relationship between rim area and HFA MD at reference plane height of 60 (A), 90 (B), 120 (C), 150 (D), and 180 (E) μm. The highest correlation between rim area and HFA MD was at 120 μm in the overall group of subjects.
The correlation coefficient between rim area and cpRNFLT.
| Reference plane height | All | FI | MY | SS | GE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.525 | 0.425 | 0.400 | 0.439 | 0.805 | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| 0.575 | 0.453 | 0.483 | 0.513 | 0.793 | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| 0.625 | 0.511 | 0.566 | 0.547 | 0.776 | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| 0.622 | 0.505 | 0.575 | 0.549 | 0.780 | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| 0.595 | 0.470 | 0.572 | 0.551 | 0.707 | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( |
The correlation coefficient between rim area and cpRNFLT at different reference plane heights and with different disc types. (Pearson’s product/moment correlation coefficient) The highest correlations were found at a height of 120 μm in the FI group (r = 0.511, P = 0.006), 150 μm in the MY group (r = 0.575, P = 0.007), 180 μm in the SS group (r = 0.551, P = 0.017), and 60 μm in the GE group (r = 0.805, P < 0.001).
Linear regression analysis of cpRNFLT and disc type influence on rim area.
| Reference plane height | F value | R2 | CV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cpRNFLT | 39.08 | < 0.001 | 0.33 | 34.32 | |
| Disc type | 3.06 | 0.031 | |||
| cpRNFLT | 49.84 | < 0.001 | 0.38 | 33.95 | |
| Disc type | 2.92 | 0.037 | |||
| cpRNFLT | 62.54 | < 0.001 | 0.42 | 36.87 | |
| Disc type | 1.96 | 0.124 | |||
| cpRNFLT | 64.31 | < 0.001 | 0.44 | 41.41 | |
| Disc type | 3.05 | 0.032 | |||
| cpRNFLT | 55.26 | < 0.001 | 0.42 | 50.51 | |
| Disc type | 3.88 | 0.011 |
In all disc types, rim area was significantly influenced by cpRNFLT at a reference plane height of 120 μm, but not by disc type (F value = 1.96, P = 0.124).
List of SS-OCT measurement parameters and their reproducibility.
| Parameter (20 patients) | Inter-rater ICC | Intra-rater ICC |
|---|---|---|
| 0.95 | 0.98 | |
| 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| 0.92 | 0.97 | |
| 0.91 | 0.94 | |
| 0.91 | 0.94 | |
| 0.91 | 0.95 | |
| 0.91 | 0.96 | |
| 0.95 | 0.99 | |
| 0.95 | 0.99 | |
| 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| 0.93 | 0.96 | |
| 0.91 | 0.97 | |
| 0.95 | 0.95 | |
| 0.94 | 0.96 | |
| 0.89 | 0.93 | |
| 0.92 | 0.95 | |
| 0.86 | 0.91 | |
| 0.98 | 0.98 | |
| 0.78 | 0.92 |
Two testers marked the BMO points and ILM in 20 patients selected at random. Morphological parameters were quantified and their reproducibility was assessed, both for intra-rater (i.e., between the two testers) and inter-rater (i.e., between two ratings of the same tester) reliability. All parameters had an ICC > 0.7.
Measurement parameters obtained with new SS-OCT software.
| Parameter | All | FI | MY | SS | GE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disc Area | 2.48 ± 0.62 | 2.36 ± 0.41 | 2.51 ± 0.79 | 2.52 ± 0.59 | 2.52 ± 0.63 | 0.826 |
| Cup Area | 1.72 ± 0.62 | 1.49 ± 0.45 | 1.66 ± 0.67 | 1.82 ± 0.61 | 1.91 ± 0.68 | 0.027 |
| Rim Area | 0.76 ± 0.36 | 0.87 ± 0.32 | 0.85 ± 0.35 | 0.70 ± 0.37 | 0.60 ± 0.36 | 0.007 |
| Disc Dia (V) | 0.92 ± 0.11 | 0.90 ± 0.07 | 0.93 ± 0.14 | 0.92 ± 0.12 | 0.91 ± 0.11 | 0.997 |
| Disc Dia (H) | 0.86 ± 0.12 | 0.84 ± 0.09 | 0.86 ± 0.15 | 0.87 ± 0.10 | 0.88 ± 0.12 | 0.608 |
| C/D Ratio (V) | 0.87 ± 0.12 | 0.87 ± 0.10 | 0.85 ± 0.13 | 0.87 ± 0.14 | 0.88 ± 0.12 | 0.517 |
| C/D Ratio (H) | 0.89 ± 0.10 | 0.85 ± 0.09 | 0.88 ± 0.11 | 0.92 ± 0.09 | 0.92 ± 0.12 | 0.003 |
| C/D Ratio (Area) | 0.69 ± 0.15 | 0.63 ± 0.13 | 0.66 ± 0.12 | 0.71 ± 0.14 | 0.75 ± 0.16 | 0.001 |
| R/D Ratio (Area) | 0.31 ± 0.15 | 0.37 ± 0.13 | 0.34 ± 0.11 | 0.29 ± 0.14 | 0.25 ± 0.16 | 0.001 |
| Max Cup Depth | 567 ± 173 | 562 ± 135 | 563 ± 174 | 479 ± 127 | 674 ± 199 | < 0.001 |
| Avg Cup Depth | 330 ± 137 | 330 ± 128 | 309 ± 122 | 257 ± 97 | 437 ± 140 | < 0.001 |
| R/D Avg (SecT) | 0.08 ± 0.06 | 0.11 ± 0.07 | 0.08 ± 0.05 | 0.06 ± 0.06 | 0.06 ± 0.06 | 0.001 |
| R/D Avg (SecTS) | 0.11 ± 0.06 | 0.14 ± 0.05 | 0.13 ± 0.07 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 0.08 ± 0.06 | < 0.001 |
| R/D Avg (SecNS) | 0.11 ± 0.06 | 0.12 ± 0.06 | 0.13 ± 0.06 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.07 | 0.080 |
| R/D Avg (SecN) | 0.10 ± 0.07 | 0.11 ± 0.06 | 0.11 ± 0.06 | 0.10 ± 0.07 | 0.07 ± 0.08 | 0.029 |
| R/D Avg (SecNI) | 0.08 ± 0.06 | 0.08 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.06 | 0.09 ± 0.08 | 0.06 ± 0.07 | 0.127 |
| R/D Avg (SecTI) | 0.07 ± 0.06 | 0.08 ± 0.06 | 0.08 ± 0.07 | 0.07 ± 0.08 | 0.06 ± 0.06 | 0.185 |
| Rim Decentering Ratio | 0.29 ± 0.40 | 0.32 ± 0.27 | 0.29 ± 0.32 | 0.31 ± 0.53 | 0.22 ± 0.42 | 0.732 |
| Disc Angle (H) | 4.07 ± 3.60 | 3.30 ± 2.78 | 6.99 ± 3.76 | 2.95 ± 2.51 | 2.77 ± 3.50 | < 0.001 |
| Disc Height Difference | 240 ± 68 | 260 ± 59 | 251 ± 87 | 224 ± 65 | 224 ± 51 | 0.103 |
SS-OCT based morphological parameters are reported as mean ± SD. They reflected the characteristics of each disc type described by Nicolela, including a small cup area and thinning in the inferior rim area in the FI disc type group, a higher disc angle in the MY group, a shallow cup and thinning in all areas in the SS group, and a large, deep cup in the GE group. (Kruskal-Wallis analysis)
Clinical background for the training group (Group 1) and validation group (Group 2), classified by 4 glaucoma specialists.
| All | FI | MY | SS | GE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | n = 72 | n = 18 | n = 18 | n = 18 | n = 18 | |
| Age (Y) | 62.3 ± 13.1 | 64.4 ± 12.8 | 57.7 ± 12.1 | 67.6 ± 13.1 | 59.7 ± 13.3 | 0.047 |
| SE (D) | -2.3 ± 2.7 | -1.4 ± 2.6 | -4.5 ± 1.9 | -2.1 ± 2.4 | -1.3 ± 2.4 | < 0.001 |
| MD (dB) | -8.8 ± 6.6 | -5.9 ± 5.0 | -8.1 ± 5.5 | -10.4 ± 8.1 | -10.9 ± 6.6 | 0.104 |
| IOP (mmHg) | 13.5 ± 2.6 | 13.0 ± 2.1 | 13.7 ± 2.8 | 13.6 ± 2.3 | 13.8 ± 3.3 | 0.694 |
| Group 2 | n = 60 | n = 15 | n = 15 | n = 15 | n = 15 | |
| Age (Y) | 62.6 ± 12.3 | 54.6 ± 14.2 | 57.0 ± 13.4 | 74.7 ± 5.3 | 61.3 ± 6.0 | < 0.001 |
| SE (D) | -2.4 ± 2.5 | -2.9 ± 2.0 | -4.3 ± 2.5 | -0.9 ± 2.2 | -1.7 ± 1.9 | < 0.001 |
| MD (dB) | -9.2 ± 7.2 | -6.2 ± 3.8 | -9.1 ± 8.4 | -9.2 ± 6.0 | -10.8 ± 8.0 | 0.501 |
| IOP (mmHg) | 13.0 ± 2.4 | 12.7 ± 1.3 | 13.3 ± 3.5 | 12.5 ± 2.1 | 13.4 ± 2.7 | 0.880 |
(Group 1) There were significant differences in age (P = 0.047) and SE (P < 0.001).
(Group 2) There were significant differences in age (P < 0.001) and SE (P < 0.001).
(P-values were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis analysis)
Fig 4The ROC for successful identification of disc type.
A ROC analysis was performed to determine whether the disc type had been successfully identified. A. FI: 0.84, B. GE: 0.93, C. MY: 0.89, D. SS: 0.93.