Katie M Litts1, Erica N Woertz2, Michalis Georgiou3,4, Emily J Patterson1, Byron L Lam5, Gerald A Fishman6, Mark E Pennesi7, Christine N Kay8, William W Hauswirth9, Michel Michaelides3,4, Joseph Carroll1,2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 2. Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 3. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK. 4. Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 6. Pangere Center for Inherited Retinal Diseases, The Chicago Lighthouse, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 8. Vitreoretinal Associates, Gainesville, FL, USA. 9. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether artifacts in optical coherence tomography (OCT) images are associated with the success or failure of adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) imaging in subjects with achromatopsia (ACHM). Methods: Previously acquired OCT and non-confocal, split-detector AOSLO images from one eye of 66 subjects with genetically confirmed achromatopsia (15 CNGA3 and 51 CNGB3) were reviewed along with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and axial length. OCT artifacts in interpolated vertical volumes from CIRRUS macular cubes were divided into four categories: (1) none or minimal, (2) clear and low frequency, (3) low amplitude and high frequency, and (4) high amplitude and high frequency. Each vertical volume was assessed once by two observers. AOSLO success was defined as sufficient image quality in split-detector images at the fovea to assess cone quantity. Results: There was excellent agreement between the two observers for assessing OCT artifact severity category (weighted kappa = 0.88). Overall, AOSLO success was 47%. For subjects with OCT artifact severity category 1, AOSLO success was 65%; for category 2, 47%; for category 3, 11%; and for category 4, 0%. There was a significant association between OCT artifact severity category and AOSLO success (P = 0.0002). Neither BCVA nor axial length was associated with AOSLO success (P = 0.07 and P = 0.75, respectively). Conclusions: Artifacts in OCT volumes are associated with AOSLO success in ACHM. Subjects with less severe OCT artifacts are more likely to be good candidates for AOSLO imaging, whereas AOSLO was successful in only 7% of subjects with category 3 or 4 OCT artifacts. These results may be useful in guiding patient selection for AOSLO imaging. Translational Relevance: Using OCT to prescreen patients could be a valuable tool for clinical trials that utilize AOSLO to reduce costs and decrease patient testing burden. Copyright 2021 The Authors.
Purpose: To determine whether artifacts in optical coherence tomography (OCT) images are associated with the success or failure of adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) imaging in subjects with achromatopsia (ACHM). Methods: Previously acquired OCT and non-confocal, split-detector AOSLO images from one eye of 66 subjects with genetically confirmed achromatopsia (15 CNGA3 and 51 CNGB3) were reviewed along with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and axial length. OCT artifacts in interpolated vertical volumes from CIRRUS macular cubes were divided into four categories: (1) none or minimal, (2) clear and low frequency, (3) low amplitude and high frequency, and (4) high amplitude and high frequency. Each vertical volume was assessed once by two observers. AOSLO success was defined as sufficient image quality in split-detector images at the fovea to assess cone quantity. Results: There was excellent agreement between the two observers for assessing OCT artifact severity category (weighted kappa = 0.88). Overall, AOSLO success was 47%. For subjects with OCT artifact severity category 1, AOSLO success was 65%; for category 2, 47%; for category 3, 11%; and for category 4, 0%. There was a significant association between OCT artifact severity category and AOSLO success (P = 0.0002). Neither BCVA nor axial length was associated with AOSLO success (P = 0.07 and P = 0.75, respectively). Conclusions: Artifacts in OCT volumes are associated with AOSLO success in ACHM. Subjects with less severe OCT artifacts are more likely to be good candidates for AOSLO imaging, whereas AOSLO was successful in only 7% of subjects with category 3 or 4 OCT artifacts. These results may be useful in guiding patient selection for AOSLO imaging. Translational Relevance: Using OCT to prescreen patients could be a valuable tool for clinical trials that utilize AOSLO to reduce costs and decrease patient testing burden. Copyright 2021 The Authors.
Authors: Christoph Tappeiner; Daniel Barthelmes; Mathias H Abegg; Sebastian Wolf; Johannes C Fleischhauer Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katie M Litts; Michalis Georgiou; Christopher S Langlo; Emily J Patterson; Rebecca R Mastey; Angelos Kalitzeos; Rachel E Linderman; Byron L Lam; Gerald A Fishman; Mark E Pennesi; Christine N Kay; William W Hauswirth; Michel Michaelides; Joseph Carroll Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Jonathan Aboshiha; Adam M Dubis; Jill Cowing; Rachel T A Fahy; Venki Sundaram; James W Bainbridge; Robin R Ali; Alfredo Dubra; Marko Nardini; Andrew R Webster; Anthony T Moore; Gary Rubin; Joseph Carroll; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Bhavna Antony; Michael D Abràmoff; Li Tang; Wishal D Ramdas; Johannes R Vingerling; Nomdo M Jansonius; Kyungmoo Lee; Young H Kwon; Milan Sonka; Mona K Garvin Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Christopher S Langlo; Laura R Erker; Maria Parker; Emily J Patterson; Brian P Higgins; Phyllis Summerfelt; Moataz M Razeen; Frederick T Collison; Gerald A Fishman; Christine N Kay; Jing Zhang; Richard G Weleber; Paul Yang; Mark E Pennesi; Byron L Lam; Jeffrey D Chulay; Alfredo Dubra; William W Hauswirth; David J Wilson; Joseph Carroll Journal: Retina Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Nashila Hirji; Michalis Georgiou; Angelos Kalitzeos; James W Bainbridge; Neruban Kumaran; Jonathan Aboshiha; Joseph Carroll; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Venki Sundaram; Caroline Wilde; Jonathan Aboshiha; Jill Cowing; Colin Han; Christopher S Langlo; Ravinder Chana; Alice E Davidson; Panagiotis I Sergouniotis; James W Bainbridge; Robin R Ali; Alfredo Dubra; Gary Rubin; Andrew R Webster; Anthony T Moore; Marko Nardini; Joseph Carroll; Michel Michaelides Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Katie M Litts; Erica N Woertz; Niamh Wynne; Brian P Brooks; Alicia Chacon; Thomas B Connor; Deborah Costakos; Alina Dumitrescu; Arlene V Drack; Gerald A Fishman; William W Hauswirth; Christine N Kay; Byron L Lam; Michel Michaelides; Mark E Pennesi; Kimberly E Stepien; Sasha Strul; C Gail Summers; Joseph Carroll Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.048