Kenneth C Fan1, Edem Tsikata, Ziad Khoueir, Huseyin Simavli, Rong Guo, Regina A de Luna, Sumir Pandit, Christian J Que, Johannes F de Boer, Teresa C Chen. 1. *Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center †Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Glaucoma Service ‡Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA §Beirut Eye and ENT Specialist Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon ∥Department of Ophthalmology, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey ¶The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD #University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City **Romblon Provincial Hospital, Romblon, Philippines ††Department of Physics and Astronomy, LaserLaB Amsterdam, VU University ‡‡Department of Ophthalmology, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic capability of 3-dimensional (3D) neuroretinal rim parameters with existing 2-dimensional (2D) neuroretinal and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness rim parameters using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) volume scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Design: Institutional prospective pilot study. STUDY POPULATION: 65 subjects (35 open-angle glaucoma patients, 30 normal patients). OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: One eye of each subject was included. SD-OCT was used to obtain 2D RNFL thickness values and 5 neuroretinal rim parameters [ie, 3D minimum distance band (MDB) thickness, 3D Bruch's membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW), 3D rim volume, 2D rim area, and 2D rim thickness]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Comparing all 3D with all 2D parameters, 3D rim parameters (MDB, BMO-MRW, rim volume) generally had higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values (range, 0.770 to 0.946) compared with 2D parameters (RNFL thickness, rim area, rim thickness; range, 0.678 to 0.911). For global region analyses, all 3D rim parameters (BMO-MRW, rim volume, MDB) were equal to or better than 2D parameters (RNFL thickness, rim area, rim thickness; P-values from 0.023 to 1.0). Among the three 3D rim parameters (MDB, BMO-MRW, and rim volume), there were no significant differences in diagnostic capability (false discovery rate >0.05 at 95% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: 3D neuroretinal rim parameters (MDB, BMO-MRW, and rim volume) demonstrated better diagnostic capability for primary and secondary open-angle glaucomas compared with 2D neuroretinal parameters (rim area, rim thickness). Compared with 2D RNFL thickness, 3D neuroretinal rim parameters have the same or better diagnostic capability.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic capability of 3-dimensional (3D) neuroretinal rim parameters with existing 2-dimensional (2D) neuroretinal and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness rim parameters using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) volume scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Design: Institutional prospective pilot study. STUDY POPULATION: 65 subjects (35 open-angle glaucomapatients, 30 normal patients). OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: One eye of each subject was included. SD-OCT was used to obtain 2D RNFL thickness values and 5 neuroretinal rim parameters [ie, 3D minimum distance band (MDB) thickness, 3D Bruch's membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW), 3D rim volume, 2D rim area, and 2D rim thickness]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Comparing all 3D with all 2D parameters, 3D rim parameters (MDB, BMO-MRW, rim volume) generally had higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values (range, 0.770 to 0.946) compared with 2D parameters (RNFL thickness, rim area, rim thickness; range, 0.678 to 0.911). For global region analyses, all 3D rim parameters (BMO-MRW, rim volume, MDB) were equal to or better than 2D parameters (RNFL thickness, rim area, rim thickness; P-values from 0.023 to 1.0). Among the three 3D rim parameters (MDB, BMO-MRW, and rim volume), there were no significant differences in diagnostic capability (false discovery rate >0.05 at 95% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: 3D neuroretinal rim parameters (MDB, BMO-MRW, and rim volume) demonstrated better diagnostic capability for primary and secondary open-angle glaucomas compared with 2D neuroretinal parameters (rim area, rim thickness). Compared with 2D RNFL thickness, 3D neuroretinal rim parameters have the same or better diagnostic capability.
Authors: Josine van der Schoot; Koenraad A Vermeer; Johannes F de Boer; Hans G Lemij Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Navid Amini; Sara Nowroozizadeh; Nila Cirineo; Sharon Henry; Ted Chang; Tom Chou; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Na Rae Kim; Hyunsun Lim; Ji Hyun Kim; Seung Soo Rho; Gong Je Seong; Chan Yun Kim Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Vishva M Danthurebandara; Glen P Sharpe; Donna M Hutchison; Jonathan Denniss; Marcelo T Nicolela; Allison M McKendrick; Andrew Turpin; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Yingna Liu; Huseyin Simavli; Christian John Que; Jennifer L Rizzo; Edem Tsikata; Rie Maurer; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Stuart K Gardiner; Ruojin Ren; Hongli Yang; Brad Fortune; Claude F Burgoyne; Shaban Demirel Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Linda Yi-Chieh Poon; David Solá-Del Valle; Angela V Turalba; Iryna A Falkenstein; Michael Horsley; Julie H Kim; Brian J Song; Hana L Takusagawa; Kaidi Wang; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Hongli Yang; Haomin Luo; Christy Hardin; Yaxing Wang; Jin Wook Jeoung; Cindy Albert; Jayme R Vianna; Glen P Sharpe; Juan Reynaud; Shaban Demirel; Steven L Mansberger; Brad Fortune; Marcelo Nicolela; Stuart K Gardiner; Balwantray C Chauhan; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Hussein Antar; Edem Tsikata; Kitiya Ratanawongphaibul; Jing Zhang; Eric Shieh; Ramon Lee; Madeline Freeman; Georgia Papadogeorgou; Huseyin Simavli; Christian Que; Alice C Verticchio Vercellin; Ziad Khoueir; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Elli A Park; Edem Tsikata; Jenny Jyoung Lee; Eric Shieh; Boy Braaf; Benjamin J Vakoc; Brett E Bouma; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Wendy W Liu; Michael McClurkin; Edem Tsikata; Pui-Chuen Hui; Tobias Elze; Ali R C Celebi; Ziad Khoueir; Ramon Lee; Eric Shieh; Huseyin Simavli; Christian Que; Rong Guo; Johannes de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Milica A Margeta; Kitiya Ratanawongphaibul; Edem Tsikata; Michele Zemplenyi; Courtney L Ondeck; Janice Kim; Anne L Coleman; Fei Yu; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 5.258