Zhichao Wu1,2,3, Denis S D Weng1, Abinaya Thenappan1, Robert Ritch4, Donald C Hood1,5. 1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia. 3. Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a manual region-of-interest (ROI) approach for detecting progressive macular ganglion cell complex (GCC) changes on optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging. METHODS: One hundred forty-six eyes with a clinical diagnosis of glaucoma or suspected glaucoma with macular OCT scans obtained at least 1 year apart were evaluated. Changes in the GCC thickness were identified using a manual ROI approach (ROIM), whereby region(s) of observed or suspected glaucomatous damage were manually identified when using key features from the macular OCT scan on the second visit. Progression was also evaluated using the global GCC thickness and an automatic ROI approach (ROIA), where contiguous region(s) that fell below the 1% lower normative limit and exceeded 288 μm2 in size were evaluated. Longitudinal signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were calculated for progressive changes detected by each of these methods using individualized estimates of test-retest variability and age-related changes, obtained from 303 glaucoma and 394 healthy eyes, respectively. RESULTS: On average, the longitudinal SNR for the global thickness, ROIA and ROIM methods were -0.90 y-1, -0.91 y-1, and -1.03 y-1, respectively, and was significantly more negative for the ROIM compared with the global thickness (P = 0.003) and ROIA methods (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Progressive glaucomatous macular GCC changes were optimally detected with a manual ROI approach. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggests that an approach based on a qualitative evaluation of OCT imaging information and consideration of known patterns of damage can improve the detection of progressive glaucomatous macular damage.
PURPOSE: To evaluate a manual region-of-interest (ROI) approach for detecting progressive macular ganglion cell complex (GCC) changes on optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging. METHODS: One hundred forty-six eyes with a clinical diagnosis of glaucoma or suspected glaucoma with macular OCT scans obtained at least 1 year apart were evaluated. Changes in the GCC thickness were identified using a manual ROI approach (ROIM), whereby region(s) of observed or suspected glaucomatous damage were manually identified when using key features from the macular OCT scan on the second visit. Progression was also evaluated using the global GCC thickness and an automatic ROI approach (ROIA), where contiguous region(s) that fell below the 1% lower normative limit and exceeded 288 μm2 in size were evaluated. Longitudinal signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were calculated for progressive changes detected by each of these methods using individualized estimates of test-retest variability and age-related changes, obtained from 303 glaucoma and 394 healthy eyes, respectively. RESULTS: On average, the longitudinal SNR for the global thickness, ROIA and ROIM methods were -0.90 y-1, -0.91 y-1, and -1.03 y-1, respectively, and was significantly more negative for the ROIM compared with the global thickness (P = 0.003) and ROIA methods (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Progressive glaucomatous macular GCC changes were optimally detected with a manual ROI approach. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggests that an approach based on a qualitative evaluation of OCT imaging information and consideration of known patterns of damage can improve the detection of progressive glaucomatous macular damage.
Authors: Christopher K S Leung; Cong Ye; Robert N Weinreb; Marco Yu; Gilda Lai; Dennis S Lam Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Young Kook Kim; Ahnul Ha; Kyeong Ik Na; Hae Jin Kim; Jin Wook Jeoung; Ki Ho Park Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Abinaya Thenappan; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Diane L Wang; Daiyan Xin; Ravivarn Jarukasetphon; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Donald C Hood; Anastasia Slobodnick; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Christopher C Teng; Robert Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Brad Fortune; Maria A Mavrommatis; Juan Reynaud; Rithambara Ramachandran; Robert Ritch; Richard B Rosen; Hassan Muhammad; Alfredo Dubra; Toco Y P Chui Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Dana M Blumberg; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Alisa J Prager; Qi Yu; Lama Al-Aswad; George A Cioffi; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Donald C Hood Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Robert J Casson; Glyn Chidlow; John P M Wood; Jonathan G Crowston; Ivan Goldberg Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Ricardo Y Abe; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Vital P Costa; Carolina P B Gracitelli; Saif Baig; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Diane L Wang; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Monica Chen; Paula Alhadeff; Ravivarn Jarukatsetphorn; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Vahid Mohammadzadeh; Alessandro Rabiolo; Qiang Fu; Esteban Morales; Anne L Coleman; Simon K Law; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Axel Petzold; Philipp Albrecht; Laura Balcer; Erik Bekkers; Alexander U Brandt; Peter A Calabresi; Orla Galvin Deborah; Jennifer S Graves; Ari Green; Pearse A Keane; Jenny A Nij Bijvank; Josemir W Sander; Friedemann Paul; Shiv Saidha; Pablo Villoslada; Siegfried K Wagner; E Ann Yeh Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 4.511