| Literature DB >> 28973002 |
Kazuko Omodaka1,2, Tsutomu Kikawa3, Yukihiro Shiga1, Satoru Tsuda1, Yu Yokoyama1, Haruka Sato1, Junko Ohuchi1, Akiko Matsumoto3, Hidetoshi Takahashi1,4, Masahiro Akiba3, Toru Nakazawa1,2,5,6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify sectors of the optical coherence tomography (OCT) macular map that could be used to effectively assess structural progression in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28973002 PMCID: PMC5626427 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Division of each macular grid point.
The distribution of highest correlation between each OCT grid point for mRNFLT (A) and mGCIPLT (B) and each clockwise scan sector (at 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 o’clock) for cpRNFLT. Also shown is a division of the macular grid points for mRNFLT (C) and mGCIPLT (D).
Baseline demographic data at the time of normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) diagnosis.
| Demographics | NTG |
|---|---|
| 63.4 ± 9.7 | |
| 47 / 34 | |
| -2.8 ± 2.6 | |
| 15.1 ± 2.5 | |
| -9.0 ± 7.0 | |
| 10.2 ± 4.3 | |
| -9.0 ± 7.0 | |
| -0.7 ± 0.8 | |
| -0.5 ± 0.9 | |
| 82.2 ± 13.7 |
aNTG: normal-tension glaucoma,
bD: diopters,
cIOP: intraocular pressure,
dMD: Humphrey-field analyzer (HFA)-measured mean deviation,
ePSD: pattern standard deviation,
fTD c16: mean total deviation in the 16 central test points (in a 4 x 4 pattern) of the HFA test,
gOCT: optical coherence tomography,
hcpRNFLT: circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layaer thickness.
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
Baseline macular retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (mRNFLT) and ganglion cell layer plus inner plexiform layer thickness (mGCIPLT) for the sector analysis.
| Location | Normal | Glaucoma | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 35.06 ± 3.82 | 20.66 ± 7.57 | <0.001 | |
| 34.15 ± 3.45 | 23.08 ± 9.14 | <0.001 | |
| 35.97 ± 4.99 | 18.11 ± 9.49 | <0.001 | |
| 37.47 ± 5.92 | 16.21 ± 10.73 | <0.001 | |
| 37.41 ± 6.15 | 23.22 ± 10.31 | <0.001 | |
| 29.71 ± 4.61 | 23.38 ± 7.63 | <0.001 | |
| 37.18 ± 3.78 | 24.27 ± 10.33 | <0.001 | |
| 21.02 ± 2.40 | 10.99 ± 8.08 | <0.001 | |
| 67.96 ±3.56 | 55.94 ± 6.14 | <0.001 | |
| 69.24 ± 3.42 | 57.24 ± 8.09 | <0.001 | |
| 66.67 ± 4.00 | 54.94 ± 6.02 | <0.001 | |
| 61.00 ± 4.13 | 52.18 ± 5.03 | <0.001 | |
| 77.06 ± 4.55 | 59.56 ± 10.30 | <0.001 | |
| 76.65 ± 6.44 | 63.37 ± 13.01 | <0.001 | |
| 71.07 ± 3.38 | 58.19 ± 8.85 | <0.001 | |
| 52.43 ± 3.66 | 47.97 ± 4.43 | <0.001 |
amRNFLT: macular retinal nerve fiber layer thickness,
bmGCIPLT: macular ganglion cell layer plus inner plexiform layer.
The data for average thickness of each layer are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Comparison of slope of progression in macular OCT parameters.
| mRNFLT | mGCIPLT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Slope | p value | Slope | p value |
| -0.22 ± 0.58 | n.c. | -0.35 ± 0.52 | n.c. | |
| -0.18 ± 0.59 | 0.168 | -0.45 ± 0.59 | <0.001 | |
| -0.30 ± 0.80 | 0.094 | -0.26 ± 0.64 | 0.001 | |
| -0.54 ± 0.69 | <0.001 | -0.61 ± 0.53 | <0.001 | |
| -0.31 ± 0.95 | 0.228 | -0.13 ± 0.71 | <0.001 | |
| -0.34 ± 1.00 | 0.124 | -0.63 ± 0.85 | <0.001 | |
| 0.001 ± 0.66 | <0.001 | -0.48 ± 0.71 | 0.203 | |
| -0.23 ± 0.70 | 0.833 | -0.49 ± 0.66 | <0.001 | |
| -0.20 ± 0.72 | 0.605 | -0.19 ± 0.78 | 0.029 | |
| -1.00 ± 0.84 | <0.001 | -1.16 ± 0.63 | <0.001 | |
| -1.01 ± 0.83 | <0.001 | -1.16 ± 0.63 | <0.001 | |
amRNFLT: macular retinal nerve fiber layer thickness,
bmGCIPLT: macular ganglion cell layer plus inner plexiform layer,
c*p value: each value was compared with average mRNFLT,
d**p value: each value was compared with average mGCIPLT,
en.c.: not compared.
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
Comparison of baseline demographic data at the time of NTG in non-progressors and progressors.
| Demographics | Non-progressors | Progressors | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63.1 ± 9.9 | 66.5 ± 7.5 | 0.089 | |
| 40 / 30 | 12 / 7 | 0.794 | |
| -2.9 ± 2.6 | -2.7 ± 2.6 | 0.685 | |
| 15.4 ± 2.2 | 13.8 ± 3.6 | 0.100 | |
| -8.6 ± 6.8 | -10.7 ± 7.6 | 0.185 | |
| 10.1 ± 4.4 | 10.8 ± 4.0 | 0.433 | |
| -10.9 ± 7.9 | -13.1 ± 8.0 | 0.323 | |
| -0.7 ± 0.8 | -1.2 ± 0.8 | 0.008 | |
| -0.3 ± 0.8 | -1.1 ± 1.0 | 0.016 | |
| 82.9 ± 13.2 | 79.1 ± 13.8 | 0.259 |
aD: diopters,
bIOP: intraocular pressure,
cMD: Humphrey-field analyzer (HFA)-measured mean deviation,
dPSD: pattern standard deviation,
eTD c16: mean total deviation in the 16 central test points (in a 4 x 4 pattern) of the HFA test,
fOCT: optical coherence tomography,
gcpRNFLT: circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layaer thickness.
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Comparison of baseline OCT parameters at the time of NTG diagnosis in non-progressors and progressors.
| Location | Non-progressors (n = 100) | Progressors (n = 22) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21.23 ± 7.62 | 17.99 ± 6.89 | 0.102 | |
| 23.31 ± 8.90 | 22.00 ± 10.36 | 0.583 | |
| 18.99 ± 9.69 | 13.98 ± 7.34 | 0.032 | |
| 17.23 ± 11.17 | 11.10 ± 6.17 | 0.043 | |
| 24.40 ± 10.28 | 16.68 ± 27.95 | 0.004 | |
| 23.31 ± 7.59 | 23.77 ± 8.10 | 0.755 | |
| 24.67 ± 10.09 | 22.37 ± 11.51 | 0.413 | |
| 10.98 ± 7.89 | 11.05 ± 9.11 | 0.990 | |
| 56.45 ± 6.30 | 53.01 ± 4.11 | 0.039 | |
| 57.71 ± 8.24 | 54.48 ± 6.76 | 0.121 | |
| 55.52 ± 6.17 | 51.54 ± 3.52 | 0.015 | |
| 52.32 ± 5.19 | 51.47 ± 4.14 | 0.523 | |
| 60.57 ± 10.25 | 54.24 ± 9.12 | 0.017 | |
| 63.82 ± 12.71 | 61.03 ± 14.66 | 0.312 | |
| 58.53 ± 8.95 | 56.49 ± 8.36 | 0.387 | |
| 48.02 ± 4.48 | 47.69 ± 4.27 | 0.993 |
amRNFLT: macular retinal nerve fiber layer thickness,
bmGCIPLT: macular ganglion cell layer plus inner plexiform layer.
Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Comparison of trend analysis results in non-progressors and progressors.
| Location | Non-progressors(n = 100) | Progressors(n = 22) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| -0.17 ± 0.54 | -0.47 ± 0.70 | 0.191 | |
| -0.16 ± 0.55 | -0.28 ± 0.77 | 0.522 | |
| -0.22 ± 0.73 | -0.66 ± 0.98 | 0.120 | |
| -0.47 ± 0.61 | -0.90 ± 0.89 | 0.045 | |
| -0.24 ± 0.88 | -0.60 ± 1.19 | 0.241 | |
| -0.24 ± 0.95 | -0.79 ± 1.09 | 0.046 | |
| 0.04 ± 0.61 | -0.19 ± 0.81 | 0.101 | |
| -0.20 ± 0.65 | -0.37 ± 0.89 | 0.503 | |
| -0.17 ± 0.73 | -0.31 ± 0.70 | 0.425 | |
| -0.89 ± 0.76 | -1.47 ± 1.03 | 0.022 | |
| -0.91 ± 0.75 | -1.48 ± 1.03 | 0.025 | |
| -0.36 ± 0.52 | -0.31 ± 0.51 | 0.919 | |
| -0.45 ± 0.62 | -0.45 ± 0.44 | 0.951 | |
| -0.28 ± 0.62 | -0.16 ± 0.73 | 0.619 | |
| -0.61 ± 0.54 | -0.59 ± 0.48 | 0.960 | |
| -0.15 ± 0.69 | -0.02 ± 0.82 | 0.717 | |
| -0.68 ± 0.76 | -0.40 ± 1.17 | 0.287 | |
| -0.46 ± 0.71 | -0.54 ± 0.78 | 0.627 | |
| -0.50 ± 0.69 | -0.49 ± 0.54 | 0.978 | |
| -0.18 ± 0.82 | -0.25 ± 0.58 | 0.559 | |
| -1.15 ± 0.62 | -1.21 ± 0.65 | 0.924 | |
| -1.15 ± 0.63 | -1.22 ± 0.65 | 0.852 |
amRNFLT: macular retinal nerve fiber layer thickness,
bmGCIPLT: macular ganglion cell layer plus inner plexiform layer.
Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Comparison of event analysis results in the overall group, the non-progressors, and the progressors.
| Location | Overall (n = 122) | Non-progressors (n = 100) | Progressors (n = 22) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mRNFLT | (eyes) | (%) | (eyes) | (%) | (eyes) | (%) |
| 4 | 3.3 | 3 | 3.0 | 1 | 4.5 | |
| 1 | 0.8 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 8 | 6.6 | 6 | 6.0 | 2 | 9.1 | |
| 9 | 7.4 | 7 | 7.0 | 2 | 9.1 | |
| 7 | 5.7 | 5 | 5.0 | 2 | 9.1 | |
| 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.0 | 1 | 4.5 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6 | 4.9 | 4 | 4.0 | 2 | 9.1 | |
| 1 | 0.8 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 16 | 13.1 | 11 | 11.0 | 5 | 22.7 | |
| 17 | 13.9 | 12 | 12.0 | 5 | 22.7 | |
| 12 | 9.8 | 10 | 10.0 | 2 | 9.1 | |
| 15 | 12.3 | 12 | 12.0 | 3 | 13.6 | |
| 2 | 1.6 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 15 | 12.3 | 12 | 12.0 | 3 | 13.6 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | 4.1 | 3 | 3.0 | 2 | 9.1 | |
| 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.0 | 1 | 4.5 | |
| 15 | 12.3 | 12 | 12.0 | 3 | 13.6 | |
| 1 | 0.8 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 18 | 14.8 | 13 | 13.0 | 5 | 22.7 | |
| 20 | 16.4 | 15 | 15.0 | 5 | 22.7 | |
amRNFLT: macular retinal nerve fiber layer thickness,
bmGCIPLT: macular ganglion cell layer plus inner plexiform layer.
Fig 2Glaucoma progression.
Venn diagrams showing glaucoma progression as evaluated with a visual field (VF) analysis and with OCT. (A) Average mRNFLT progression, (B) average mGCIPLT progression, (C) mRNFLT progression in any hemifield, (D) mGCIPLT progression in any hemifield, (E) mRNFLT progression in any clockwise sector, (F) mGCIPLT progression in any clockwise sector.