Chui M Gemmy Cheung1, Timothy Y Y Lai2, Kelvin Teo3, Paisan Ruamviboonsuk4, Shih-Jen Chen5, Judy E Kim6, Fumi Gomi7, Adrian H Koh8, Gregg Kokame9, Janice Marie Jordan-Yu10, Federico Corvi11, Alessandro Invernizzi12, Yuichiro Ogura13, Colin Tan14, Paul Mitchell15, Vishali Gupta16, Jay Chhablani17, Usha Chakravarthy18, Srinivas R Sadda19, Tien Y Wong3, Giovanni Staurenghi11, Won Ki Lee20. 1. Medical Retina Department, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. Electronic address: gemmy.cheung.c.m@snec.com.sg. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 3. Medical Retina Department, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 6. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan. 8. Medical Retina Department, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; Eye and Retina Surgeons, Camden Medical Centre, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. 9. Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Hawaii School of Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii. 10. Medical Retina Department, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. 11. Eye Clinic, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences "Luigi Sacco," University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 12. Eye Clinic, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences "Luigi Sacco," University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Save Sight Institute, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 13. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan. 14. National Healthcare Group Eye Institute, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. 15. Westmead Institute for Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 16. Advanced Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India. 17. University of Pittsburgh Eye Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 18. Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom. 19. Doheny Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 20. Nune Eye Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop consensus terminology in the setting of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) and to develop and validate a set of diagnostic criteria not requiring indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) for differentiating PCV from typical neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) based on a combination of OCT and color fundus photography findings. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test results. PARTICIPANTS: Panel of retina specialists. METHODS: As part of the Asia-Pacific Ocular Imaging Society, an international group of experts surveyed and discussed the published literature regarding the current nomenclature and lesion components for PCV, and proposed an updated consensus nomenclature that reflects our latest understanding based on imaging and histologic reports. The workgroup evaluated a set of diagnostic features based on OCT images and color fundus photographs for PCV that may distinguish it from typical nAMD and assessed the performance of individual and combinations of these non-ICGA features, aiming to propose a new set of diagnostic criteria that does not require the use of ICGA. The final recommendation was validated in 80 eyes from 2 additional cohorts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus nomenclature system for PCV lesion components and non-ICGA-based criteria to differentiate PCV from typical nAMD. RESULTS: The workgroup recommended the terms polypoidal lesion and branching neovascular network for the 2 key lesion components in PCV. For the diagnosis of PCV, the combination of 3 OCT-based major criteria (sub-retinal pigment epithelium [RPE] ring-like lesion, en face OCT complex RPE elevation, and sharp-peaked PED) achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. Validation of this new scheme in a separate subset 80 eyes achieved an accuracy of 82%. CONCLUSIONS: We propose updated terminology for PCV lesion components that better reflects the nature of these lesions and is based on international consensus. A set of practical diagnostic criteria applied easily to spectral-domain OCT results can be used for diagnosing PCV with high accuracy in clinical settings in which ICGA is not performed routinely.
PURPOSE: To develop consensus terminology in the setting of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) and to develop and validate a set of diagnostic criteria not requiring indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) for differentiating PCV from typical neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) based on a combination of OCT and color fundus photography findings. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test results. PARTICIPANTS: Panel of retina specialists. METHODS: As part of the Asia-Pacific Ocular Imaging Society, an international group of experts surveyed and discussed the published literature regarding the current nomenclature and lesion components for PCV, and proposed an updated consensus nomenclature that reflects our latest understanding based on imaging and histologic reports. The workgroup evaluated a set of diagnostic features based on OCT images and color fundus photographs for PCV that may distinguish it from typical nAMD and assessed the performance of individual and combinations of these non-ICGA features, aiming to propose a new set of diagnostic criteria that does not require the use of ICGA. The final recommendation was validated in 80 eyes from 2 additional cohorts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus nomenclature system for PCV lesion components and non-ICGA-based criteria to differentiate PCV from typical nAMD. RESULTS: The workgroup recommended the terms polypoidal lesion and branching neovascular network for the 2 key lesion components in PCV. For the diagnosis of PCV, the combination of 3 OCT-based major criteria (sub-retinal pigment epithelium [RPE] ring-like lesion, en face OCT complex RPE elevation, and sharp-peaked PED) achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. Validation of this new scheme in a separate subset 80 eyes achieved an accuracy of 82%. CONCLUSIONS: We propose updated terminology for PCV lesion components that better reflects the nature of these lesions and is based on international consensus. A set of practical diagnostic criteria applied easily to spectral-domain OCT results can be used for diagnosing PCV with high accuracy in clinical settings in which ICGA is not performed routinely.
Authors: Daniel Duck-Jin Hwang; Seong Choi; Junseo Ko; Jeewoo Yoon; Ji In Park; Joon Seo Hwang; Jeong Mo Han; Hak Jun Lee; Joonhong Sohn; Kyu Hyung Park; Jinyoung Han Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mengxi Shen; Hao Zhou; Kiyoung Kim; Qiyu Bo; Jie Lu; Rita Laiginhas; Xiaoshuang Jiang; Quan Yan; Prashanth Iyer; Omer Trivizki; Yingying Shi; Luis de Sisternes; Mary K Durbin; William Feuer; Giovanni Gregori; Ruikang K Wang; Xiaodong Sun; Fenghua Wang; Seung-Young Yu; Philip J Rosenfeld Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Chinmayi Himanshuroy Vyas; Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung; Colin Tan; Caroline Chee; Kelly Wong; Janice Marie N Jordan-Yu; Tien Yin Wong; Anna Tan; Beau Fenner; Shaun Sim; Kelvin Yi Chong Teo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 2.692