Rachel Linderman1, Alexander E Salmon2, Margaret Strampe1,3, Madia Russillo4, Jamil Khan4, Joseph Carroll1,2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 2. Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, & Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 3. University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The foveal avascular zone (FAZ) is altered in numerous diseases. We assessed factors (axial length, segmentation method, age, sex) impacting FAZ measurements from optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography images. METHODS: We recruited 116 Caucasian subjects without ocular disease, and acquired two 3 × 3 mm AngioVue scans per each right eye (232 total scans). In images of the superficial plexus, the FAZ was segmented using the AngioVue semiautomatic nonflow measurement tool and ImageJ manual segmentation. In images from the full retinal thickness, the FAZ was segmented using the AngioAnalytics automatic FAZ tool. Repeatability, reliability, and reproducibility were calculated for FAZ measurements (acircularity, area). RESULTS: FAZ area (mean ± SD) for manual segmentation was 0.240 ± 0.0965 mm2, greater than both semiautomatic (0.216 ± 0.0873 mm2) and automatic (0.218 ± 0.0869 mm2) segmentation (P < 0.05). Not correcting for axial length introduced errors up to 25% in FAZ area. Manual area segmentation had better repeatability (0.020 mm2) than semiautomatic (0.043 mm2) or automatic (0.056 mm2). FAZ acircularity had better repeatability with automatic than manual segmentation (0.086 vs. 0.114). Reliability of all area measurements was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.994 manual, 0.969 semiautomatic, 0.948 automatic). Reliability of acircularity measurements was 0.879 for manual and 0.606 for automatic. CONCLUSION: We identified numerous factors affecting FAZ measurements. These errors confound comparisons across studies and studies examining factors that may correlate with FAZ measures. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Using FAZ measurements as biomarkers for disease progression requires assessing and controlling for different sources of error. Not correcting for ocular magnification can result in significant inaccuracy in FAZ measurements, while choice of segmentation method affects both repeatability and accuracy.
PURPOSE: The foveal avascular zone (FAZ) is altered in numerous diseases. We assessed factors (axial length, segmentation method, age, sex) impacting FAZ measurements from optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography images. METHODS: We recruited 116 Caucasian subjects without ocular disease, and acquired two 3 × 3 mm AngioVue scans per each right eye (232 total scans). In images of the superficial plexus, the FAZ was segmented using the AngioVue semiautomatic nonflow measurement tool and ImageJ manual segmentation. In images from the full retinal thickness, the FAZ was segmented using the AngioAnalytics automatic FAZ tool. Repeatability, reliability, and reproducibility were calculated for FAZ measurements (acircularity, area). RESULTS: FAZ area (mean ± SD) for manual segmentation was 0.240 ± 0.0965 mm2, greater than both semiautomatic (0.216 ± 0.0873 mm2) and automatic (0.218 ± 0.0869 mm2) segmentation (P < 0.05). Not correcting for axial length introduced errors up to 25% in FAZ area. Manual area segmentation had better repeatability (0.020 mm2) than semiautomatic (0.043 mm2) or automatic (0.056 mm2). FAZ acircularity had better repeatability with automatic than manual segmentation (0.086 vs. 0.114). Reliability of all area measurements was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.994 manual, 0.969 semiautomatic, 0.948 automatic). Reliability of acircularity measurements was 0.879 for manual and 0.606 for automatic. CONCLUSION: We identified numerous factors affecting FAZ measurements. These errors confound comparisons across studies and studies examining factors that may correlate with FAZ measures. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Using FAZ measurements as biomarkers for disease progression requires assessing and controlling for different sources of error. Not correcting for ocular magnification can result in significant inaccuracy in FAZ measurements, while choice of segmentation method affects both repeatability and accuracy.
Authors: Wasim A Samara; Emil A T Say; Chloe T L Khoo; Timothy P Higgins; George Magrath; Sandor Ferenczy; Carol L Shields Journal: Retina Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Melissa A Wilk; John T McAllister; Robert F Cooper; Adam M Dubis; Teresa N Patitucci; Phyllis Summerfelt; Jennifer L Anderson; Kimberly E Stepien; Deborah M Costakos; Thomas B Connor; William J Wirostko; Pei-Wen Chiang; Alfredo Dubra; Christine A Curcio; Murray H Brilliant; C Gail Summers; Joseph Carroll Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Shawn Philip; Ahmad Najafi; Apichat Tantraworasin; Toco Y P Chui; Richard B Rosen; Robert Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J L Lauermann; A K Woetzel; M Treder; M Alnawaiseh; C R Clemens; N Eter; Florian Alten Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: S Tammy Hsu; Hoan T Ngo; Sandra S Stinnett; Nathan L Cheung; Robert J House; Michael P Kelly; Xi Chen; Laura B Enyedi; S Grace Prakalapakorn; Miguel A Materin; Mays A El-Dairi; Glenn J Jaffe; Sharon F Freedman; Cynthia A Toth; Lejla Vajzovic Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Rachel E Linderman; Jenna A Cava; Alexander E Salmon; Toco Y Chui; Alan D Marmorstein; Brandon J Lujan; Richard B Rosen; Joseph Carroll Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-11-22
Authors: Yansha Lu; Joseph M Simonett; Jie Wang; Miao Zhang; Thomas Hwang; Ahmed M Hagag; David Huang; Dengwang Li; Yali Jia Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jorge S Andrade Romo; Rachel E Linderman; Alexander Pinhas; Joseph Carroll; Richard B Rosen; Toco Y P Chui Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 3.283