Ocular biometric parameters changes and choroidal vascular abnormalities in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 evaluated by OCT-A.

PURPOSE: To analyze ocular biometric parameters alterations of the posterior pole and choroidal abnormalities in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) by adopting multimodal imaging, especially focusing on the role of novel diagnostic devices like swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA).
METHODS: In this prospective, case-controlled study, patients with NF1 and age-matched control subjects were quantitatively analyzed by using multimodal imaging. All the subjects underwent confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO), SS-OCT and SS-OCTA examinations.
RESULTS: SS-OCT analysis revealed a lower macular retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness in patients with NF1 compared with those with suspected NF1 (95.0±15.9 vs 109.7±11.3 μm; P = 0.001) and control subjects (106.8±14.4 μm, P = 0.003). Retinal thickness was significantly lower in NF1 patients compared to those with suspected NF1 (280.7±23.0 vs 304.2±15.3 μm; P < 0.001) and control subjects (298.7±23.8 μm, P = 0.003). The mean vascular flow area of the SCP was significantly higher in patients with NF1 (42.6±2.2%) and suspected NF1 (43.1±2.5%) compared to control subjects (41.0±2.0%; respectively, P = 0.017 and P = 0.002). In the second choroidal layer, the flow area was significantly lower in patients with NF1 compared to control subjects (45.4±4.8 vs 49.0±4.0%,; P = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: Retinal thicknesses alterations and choroidal nodules are described as ocular manifestations in patients with NF1. In addition, OCTA could represent an important novel advanced imaging technique, capable of detecting early altered retinal and choroidal vascular flow area in patients with NF1.

Introduction

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), also known as von Recklinghausen’s disease, is one of the most frequent autosomal dominant disorders, showing an incidence of 1 out of 2500–3000 births [1]. This genetic neurocutaneous disorder is due to the mutation of the NF1 gene, displaying a tumor suppressor role and situated on chromosome 17q11.2. NF1 encodes for neurofibromin, a protein involved in the RAS signal transduction pathway, whose loss ultimately leads to constitutive downstream signaling and abnormal cell growth [2, 3].

Nowadays, the criteria for the diagnosis of NF1 still remain clinical; they were first defined in 1988 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and comprehend the contemporary presence of these following criteria: six or more café‐au‐lait spots, two or more cutaneous neurofibromas, one or more plexiform neurofibromas, axillary or inguinal freckling, optic glioma, two or more iris Lisch nodules, characteristic skeletal dysplasia and a first‐degree relative with NF1 diagnosis; however, in some centers genetic assessment is commonly performed in order to confirm NF1 diagnosis [4, 5].

Although Lisch nodules represent the most common ocular manifestation of the disease, several other ocular conditions such as optic gliomas, eyelid neurofibromas and café-au-lait spots, choroidal nevi, choroidal nodules and congenital glaucoma have been described in association with NF1 [6]. In this regard, it has been shown by near-infrared reflectance (NIR) imaging that choroidal abnormalities may occur in 100% of the patients with NF1 [7]. For this reason, choroidal nodules have been investigated as new possible diagnostic criteria of NF1 [8]. The presence of choroidal nodules, detected as bright patchy areas by NIR, has previously been reported in 70% of pediatric patients with NF1 [3]. Mostly undetectable by performing normal ophthalmological examination and fluorescein angiography (FA), choroidal nodules may also be observed with indocyanine green angiography (ICGA); however, because of the invasive nature of this latter advanced imaging technique, this should not be considered as a first line strategy like NIR in detecting choroidal abnormalities [9].

Furthermore, in patients with NF1 it has been reported the association between choroidal nodules and retinal vascular abnormalities (RVAs) [10]. RVAs are described as small tortuous venules with a “corkscrew” appearance and their reported prevalence measured by FA or EDI-OCT ranges between 35% and 37.5% in patients with NF1 [11, 12]. More recently, the introduction of novel, non-invasive devices like OCT angiography (OCTA) has enabled us to better characterize retinal and choroidal vasculature [13]. Parrozzani et al. detected RVA in only 6.1% of the patients with NF1 by OCTA.

The aim of our study is to evaluate the ocular biometric parameters changes of the posterior pole and the choroidal vascular abnormalities in patients affected with NF1. Furthermore, we will discuss the possible additional role of new devices like OCTA in the early diagnosis of NF1 by comparing the retinal and choroidal vascular flow area between the examined group and healthy subjects of the same age.

Patients and methods

This prospective, cross-sectional study was performed at the University Eye Clinic of Genoa, Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health (DINOGMI), IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in collaboration with IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy.

Informed consent was obtained verbally from all participants and/or their families (By the parents in case of minors) and this study was done in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local Institutional Ethics Committee (Ethics Committee of DINOGMI, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino).

All the subjects presenting a stringent diagnosis of NF1 in accordance with the above-mentioned NIH criteria were included in this study; by contrast, the control group was represented by age-matched healthy subjects. In addition, age-matched subjects presenting less than 2 NIH diagnostic criteria of NF1 were enrolled in the study as “suspected NF1 group”.

All the subjects whose posterior segment was not explorable by ophthalmological examination due to media opacity, refractive defects greater than ± 5 D (spherical equivalent) and any other ocular diseases including glaucoma and/or with borderline values of intraocular pressure (IOP) were ruled out from this prospective study. Moreover, also subjects presenting a medical history of ocular disease potentially involving retinal and choroidal tissues (such as uveitis, maculopathies, and other ocular congenital diseases) were excluded from the study. Diabetic patients were also ruled out from the study.

All the subjects underwent a comprehensive ophthalmological examination: firstly, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured, then a slit lamp examination in order to record the possible presence of Lisch nodules and a mydriatic indirect fundus biomicroscopy (with a 90‐dioptre (D) lens in compliant patients or indirect fundus ophthalmoscopy with a 28‐dioptre (D) lens in non-compliant patients) were performed. IOP measurement with Goldmann applanation tonometry was performed to all the patients.

All the participants underwent also confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) with a Spectralis HRA+OCT device (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). SLO was performed in order to spot and count the number of choroidal lesions by setting NIR at 815 nm.

Then, all the subjects underwent swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) and OCTA (SS-OCTA) examinations, after having dilatated pupil with mydriatic tropicamide 1% ophthalmic drops. The SS-OCT device (DRI OCT Triton; Topcon Corporation) adopted in this study presents a central wavelength of 1050 nm, with an acquisition speed of 100,000 A-scans per second and an axial and transversal resolution of 7 and 20 μm in tissue, respectively. Each subject was examined with a 12-radial line (12 mm) acquisition centered on the fovea and three-dimensional (3D WIDE) acquisition protocol centered on the optic disc. Three-dimensional 4.5 × 4.5 mm2 volumetric scans were obtained from 320 (horizontal) × 320 (vertical) A-scans. Choroidal abnormalities detected by SLO images were subsequently compared with SS-OCT scans in order to assess which was the degree of concordance between these two diagnostic tools. Furthermore, SS-OCTA scans were extrapolated from 4.5 × 4.5 mm2 cubes with each cube including 320 clusters of four repeated B-scans centered on the fovea. Images from the retinal superficial capillary plexus (SCP), deep capillary plexus (DCP), choriocapillaris (CC) and choroid were considered for the analysis.

More in detail, the software automatically generated the OCTA images of the SCP, DCP, and CC. OCTA images of three deeper choroidal levels were taken by lowering the segmentation lines at the level of Sattler and Haller layers whose average depth has been referred to be approximately 259.70 and 125 μm, respectively, in healthy subjects. 3 different levels (L1, L2, and L3) of the deep choroid were by setting the segmentation lines between 59.6 and 80.6 μm, 80.6 and 119.6 μm, and 119.6 and 137.8 μm from the Bruch’s membrane, respectively [14].

Two investigators independently reviewed all scans to ensure correct segmentation and image quality for the post hoc assessment. Poor quality OCT-A scans with a low quality index than 30 were also excluded.

The number of choroidal nodules was manually calculated by expert ophthalmologists by analyzing NIR, OCTA and SS-OCT images. RVAs (retinal vascular abnormalities) consisted of small size second or third order tortuous venules, which were named ‘corkscrew’ retinal vessels. These abnormal vessels usually have a size of one or two disc diameters and end in a small tuff or disappear on the retinal surface [11].

The SPSS statistical software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for data analysis. If both eyes were eligible, values from right eyes were used for statistical analysis. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The χ2 test was used to compare dichotomous variables among patients with NF1, suspected NF1 and control subjects. A one-way ANOVA was used to compare continuous variables among the 3 groups. Post hoc comparisons between one group and another were performed using the Tukey’s test A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Thirty-one patients with NF1 were enrolled and compared with 34-age matched healthy subjects and 25 subjects with suspected diagnosis of NF1. Clinical and demographical characteristics of enrolled patients are reported in Table 1. Patients with NF1 showed no significant difference in age compared to control subjects (22.7 ± 13.7 vs 24.9 ± 12.0 years, P = 0.725). Conversely, patients with suspected NF1 had a mean age of 13.7 ± 6.5 years and were significantly younger than patients with NF1 (P = 0.012) and control subjects (P = 0.001). No significant difference in sex distribution was observed among the 3 groups (P = 0.034).

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients.

	NF1 (n = 31)	Suspected NF1 (n = 25)	Controls (n = 34)	P
Age (years)	22.7 ± 13.7	13.7 ± 6.5	24.9 ± 12.0	0.001
Sex (m/f)	14/17	8/17	17/17	0.374
Lisch nodules	20 (64.5%)	6 (24.0%)	0 (0.0%)	<0.001
Optic glioma	3 (9.7%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0.052
Choroidal nodules	24 (77.4%)	2 (8.0%)	0 (0.0%)	<0.001

NF1: Neurofibromatosis type 1; LE: Left eye; RE: Right eye.

In the NF1 group, 20 patients (64.5%) had Lisch nodules, compared to 6 patients (24.0%) in the suspected NF1 group and no patients in the control group (P = 0.001). Choroidal nodules were observed in 24 patients with NF1 (77.4%), 2 patients with suspected NF1 (8.0%) and no patients in the control group (P < 0.001). In patients with NF1, the mean number of choroidal nodules was 3.1 ± 2.9, and 8 patients (25.8%) had 5 or more nodules. Three patients with NF1 (9.7%) presented optic glioma, while no patients with suspected NF1 and no control subjects did. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.052).

SS-OCT analysis revealed that patients with NF1 had a significantly lower macular retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness compared to patients with suspected NF1 (95.0 ± 15.9 vs 109.7 ± 11.3 μm; P = 0.001) and control subjects (106.8 ± 14.4 μm, P = 0.003). Conversely, no significant difference in macular RNFL between patients with suspected NF1 and control subjects was observed (P = 0.713). Similarly, retinal thickness was significantly lower in NF1 patients compared to those with suspected NF1 (280.7 ± 23.0 vs 304.2 ± 15.3 μm; P < 0.001) and control subjects (298.7 ± 23.8 μm, P = 0.003). Conversely, retinal thickness did not differ between patients with suspected NF1 and control subjects (P = 0.598). No significant differences of ganglion cell layer (GCL) thickness and choroidal thickness were observed among the 3 groups (both P > 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2

Retinal and choroidal thicknesses measured by SS-OCT in NF1 patients, suspected NF1 patients and healthy subjects.

	NF1 (n = 31)	Suspected NF1 (n = 25)	Controls (n = 34)	P*
RNFL (μm)	95.0 ± 15.9	109.7 ± 11.3	106.8 ± 14.4	<0.001
RT (μm)	280.7 ± 23.0	304.2 ± 15.3	298.7 ± 23.8	<0.001
GCL (μm)	42.9 ± 4.6	44.9 ± 4.1	43.8 ± 3.7	0.203
CT (μm)	147.0 ± 49.8	142.0 ± 43.3	151.7 ± 47.5	0.737

NF1: Neurofibromatosis type 1; RNFL: Retinal nerve fiber layer; RT: Retinal thickness; GCL: Ganglion cell layer; CT: Choroidal thickness.

* One-way ANOVA.

The results of the OCTA analysis in the 3 groups are reported in Table 3. The mean vascular flow area of the SCP was significantly higher in patients with NF1 (42.6 ± 2.2%) and suspected NF1 (43.1 ± 2.5%) compared to control subjects (41.0 ± 2.0%; respectively, P = 0.017 and P = 0.002). Conversely, no difference in the flow area of the SCP was observed between patients with NF1 and suspected NF1 (P = 0.704). No significant differences in the flow area of the DCP, CC, and first choroidal layer were observed between the 3 groups (always, P > 0.05). In the second choroidal layer, the flow area was significantly lower in patients with NF1 compared to control subjects (45.4 ± 4.8 vs 49.0 ± 4.0%; P = 0.011); while no differences between patients with NF1 and suspected NF1, and patients with suspected NF1 and controls were observed (both P > 0.05). In the third choroidal layer, the flow area was significantly lower in patients with NF1 compared to those with suspected NF1 (49.7 ± 6.7 vs 54.3 ± 5.7%; P = 0.013); while no differences between patients with NF1 and controls, and patients suspected NF1 and controls were observed (both P > 0.05).

Table 3

Vascular flow area of different retinal and choroid layers in NF1 patients, suspected NF1 patients and controls.

	NF1 (n = 31)	Suspected NF1 (n = 25)	Controls (n = 34)	P*
SCP (%)	42.6 ± 2.2	43.1 ± 2.5	41.0 ± 2.0	0.002
DCP (%)	44.3 ± 3.0	45.7 ± 2.8	44.6 ± 2.9	0.185
CC (%)	53.5 ± 3.0	54.5 ± 3.3	53.7 ± 1.3	0.352
Choroid 1 (%)	51.1 ± 3.5	51.1 ± 4.1	52.8 ± 3.1	0.113
Choroid 2 (%)	45.4 ± 4.8	47.1 ± 5.7	49.0 ± 4.0	0.015
Choroid 3 (%)	49.7 ± 6.7	54.3 ± 5.7	51.6 ± 5.2	0.018

NF1: Neurofibromatosis type 1; SCP: Superficial capillary plexus; DCP: Deep capillary plexus; CC: Choriocapillaris.

* One-way ANOVA.

SS-OCTA images revealed the presence of ‘corkscrew’ vessels in 9 patients with NF1 (29.0%), and in none of the patients with suspected NF1 and control subjects (P < 0.001). These abnormal vessels were located in the posterior pole along the vascular arcades. No patients with NF1 presented more than one ‘corkscrew’ vessel for each eye. Moreover, these alterations were also found by using SS-OCT-en face, appearing as tortuous vessels parallel to the normal arteriosus profile.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective, large scale study that aimed to simultaneously analyze both choroidal and retinal thickness variations by SS-OCT, the presence of choroidal nodules and nonetheless, the alterations in the vascular flow area by SS-OCTA in patients with NF1.

Choroidal nodules consist of proliferating Schwann cells arranged in concentric rings and show histological similarities to cutaneous neurofibromata and Lisch nodules [15, 16]. In the present study, choroidal nodules were identified in 77.4% of patients with NF1 and 8.0% of patients with suspected NF1. These results are in line with those of previous studies, which reported a frequency of choroidal nodules in pediatric patients with NF1 ranging from 69 to 71% (3,8). The slightly higher frequency of choroidal nodules in our study may be caused by the older sample size examined. Moreover, choroidal nodules were more specific for NF1 compared to Lisch nodules. This confirms the utility of choroidal nodules as a new diagnostic marker of NF1.

In the present study, we found a significant reduction of macular RNFL thickness and retinal thickness in patients with NF1 compared to those with suspected NF1 and control subjects. A reduced macular RNFL thickness was previously reported in patients with NF1 and optic pathway gliomas [17, 18]. Thus, the measurement of macular RNFL thickness has been proposed as a useful tool to screen NF1 patients for the presence of gliomas [15, 17]. However, only 3 patients in our cohort had a optic pathway glioma. In this regard, as previously reported in literature, RNFL thinning has been found also in adult patients with NF1 without the presence optic nerve glioma [16]. Hence, our results are in line with these findings suggest that macular RNFL thickness may be reduced in patients with NF1 even in the absence of this complication. Further studies in the near future should better clarify if the measurement of RNFL and GCL thicknesses may be helpful in the management of patients with NF1 without glioma.

Although a significant decrease of the choroidal vascular flow area was found in NF1 patients with OCTA, we did not identify any significant difference in choroidal thickness among patients with NF1, suspected NF1 and controls. This result is in contrast with those of Abdolrahimzadeh et al., who reported significant choroidal thinning in adults patients with NF1 [16]. The difference may be due to the younger age of patients in our study. Therefore, that the reduced choroidal circulation measured with OCTA might be an earlier sign of the choroidal involvement in NF1, while choroidal thinning may occur later in life.

The association between NF1 and RVAs has been widely demonstrated. Muci-Mendoza et al. described RVAs as small tortuous venules with a “corkscrew” appearance and revealed that their prevalence was 37.5% of the patients with NF1 by performing direct ophthalmoscopy or FA [11] Abdolrahimzadeh et al. found in 35% of the patients with NF1 the presence of RVAs overlying the choroidal abnormalities detected by the contemporary use of NIR and EDI-OCT [12]. In agreement with these results, by using SS-OCTA we were able to identify RVAs in 29% of patients with NF1 and in none of the patients with suspect NF1 and control subjects.

The introduction of OCTA in the clinical practice has allowed us to demonstrate the laminar organization of the capillary plexus, in which the DCP is composed by polygonal units draining into the superficial venules of the SCP [17]. Parrozzani et al. detected RVAs in only 6.1% of the patients with NF1 by OCTA; in this regard, they found that the presence of RVAs was not related to patients’ visual outcome. In addition, they found that all the RVAs were situated in the SCP, while in 75% of the cases they were associated with a congested capillary network in the DCP. The authors postulated that the primary damage would reside in DCP changes, bringing to the formation of small crowded arterial vessels draining into the SCP [18].

Our study was the first one to investigate the vascular flow area measured by OCTA in patients with NF1. Interestingly, NF1 patients showed a higher vascular flow area of the SCP as compared with healthy subjects and patients suspected NF1. The presence of RVAs in the SCP could explain this finding. In addition, patients with NF1 showed a significant decrease of the vascular flow area both in the second and third choroidal layers. This is in line with previous studies demonstrating an altered choroidal blood perfusion by ICGA in patients with NF1, with hypofluorescent areas in the CC found in the early phases [9]. Thus, the altered vascular flow area at the different choroidal layers in patients with NF1 may be due to a pathological redistribution of the vascular flow caused by the presence of choroidal lesions.

In conclusion, this present study showed the significant alterations in retinal and macular RNFL thicknesses, a high prevalence of choroidal nodules, and, nonetheless, the altered retinal and choroidal vascular flow area measured by OCTA in NF1 patients. Further larger scale studies adopting this novel device should better clarify the complex pathological mechanisms involved in these vascular alterations.

25 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-01698

Ocular biometric parameters changes and choroidal vascular abnormalities in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 evaluated by OCT-A

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferro Desideri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please correct referencing and formatting errors. Please provide brain MRI images or the results of brain MRI for NF1 patients. Focus on your specific results and don't conclude that this can be a diagnostic method at this stage.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "Informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their familiesandthis study was done in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee".

a.) Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b.) Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper in an area of active research (biomarkers for NF1) that has rapidly progressed with multimodal imaging. The use of swept source and OCTA by the authors provides further knowledge on the topic.

Some revision would greatly enhance the manuscript as follows:

Abstract

Specify “macular” RNFL, if this is the case. This needs to be specified in the methods section and throughout.

In the conclusions avoid general comments (first sentence) and focus on specific results such as the major novel finding ie choroidal and retinal vascular flow area. The use of the term “diagnostic tool” may be appropriate once further studies are carried out, rather the findings of the authors provide further knowledge on the vascular alterations of the choroid using advance imaging, and thinning of the RNFL even in the absence of optic nerve gliomas

In the results section please check language: the word “compared” is inserted twice

Introduction

Although the diagnosis of NF1 is clinical, some centers use genetic testing for assessment, please mention this.

Please correct to: …contemporary presence of “the” following criteria…

Please correct to: “The presence of choroidal nodules, detected as bright patchy areas by NIR, has previously been reported in 70% of pediatric patients with NF1.”

Please correct to: Furthermore, in patients with NF1, the association between choroidal nodules and retinal vascular abnormalities (RVAs) has been reported.

Please correct: OCTA has “enabled” us

Methods

Please state if IOP was measured and please state if patients with glaucoma or borderline IOP were excluded, as this can influence RNFL and GCL- IPL thickness values.

Please correct: Remove the word “Furthermore”…… 3 different levels (l1, L2, and L3…)

Results

Please evaluate RNFL and GCL excluding patients with glioma in order to confirm significance results. If, following statistical analysis, the results change please comment accordingly in discussion.

Discussion

The authors state: “A reduced RNFL thickness was previously reported in patients with NF1 and optic pathway gliomas (17,18). Thus, the measurement of RNFL thickness has been proposed as a useful tool to screen NF1 patients for the presence of gliomas (17). However, only 3 patients in our cohort had a optic pathway glioma. Therefore, RNFL thickness may be reduced in patients with NF1 even in the absence of this complication.” There are publications on RNFL thinning in patients with optic nerve glioma (Chang L, et al. Optical coherence tomography in the evaluation of neurofibromatosis type-1 subjects with optic pathway gliomas. J AAPOS 2010;14:511-517.; Topcu-Yilmaz P, et al. Investigation of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in patients with neurofibromatosis-1. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2014;88:172-176.)

but also RNFL thinning in adult patients WITHOUT optic nerve glioma (Abdolrahimzadeh S, et al. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography evidence of retinal nerve fibre layer and ganglion cell loss in adult patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. Retina 2016; 36:75-81). Furthermore, some authors have studied the peripapillary RNFL and some also the macular RNFL.

This section would benefit with some discussion, please mention the relevant references above when discussing the results on RNFL thickness.

Citations and references

Please correct citations in text: in some sections the citation in the text is the author name and year of publication, in other sections there are numbers. Furthermore, references are not identified by numbers in the reference section. Kindly correct citations and references according to journal instructions.

Reference 16 is missing in the reference section when the authors refer to the previous study on choroidal thickness, Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:789-793.

References 17, and 18 are missing in the reference section when the authors refer to RNFL thinning, Chang L et al and Topcu-Yilmaz P et al.

Please carefully check citations and reference list for accuracy throughout.

Reviewer #2: Very interesting study

one major remark: No data on MRI of the brain was given, if not all NF1 patients and NF1 suspected patients have undergone an MRI, no conclusions related to the RNFL can be drawn

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Apr 2021

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper in an area of active research (biomarkers for NF1) that has rapidly progressed with multimodal imaging. The use of swept source and OCTA by the authors provides further knowledge on the topic.

Some revision would greatly enhance the manuscript as follows:

Abstract

Specify “macular” RNFL, if this is the case. This needs to be specified in the methods section and throughout.

We thank the reviewer for this comment; we specified it was the RFNL thickness measured in the macular region.

In the conclusions avoid general comments (first sentence) and focus on specific results such as the major novel finding ie choroidal and retinal vascular flow area. The use of the term “diagnostic tool” may be appropriate once further studies are carried out, rather the findings of the authors provide further knowledge on the vascular alterations of the choroid using advance imaging, and thinning of the RNFL even in the absence of optic nerve gliomas

We thank the reviewer for this insight. We avoided general comments as suggested, focusing on the possible importance of our findings and we agree with the fact that OCT-A ca not be considered a diagnostic tool yet considering the relatively small evidence in this regard to date.

In the results section please check language: the word “compared” is inserted twice

We corrected it as suggested.

Introduction

Although the diagnosis of NF1 is clinical, some centers use genetic testing for assessment, please mention this.

We specified it as suggested by the reviewer

Please correct to: …contemporary presence of “the” following criteria…

We modified it as suggested by the reviewer

Please correct to: “The presence of choroidal nodules, detected as bright patchy areas by NIR, has previously been reported in 70% of pediatric patients with NF1.”

We modified it as suggested

Please correct to: Furthermore, in patients with NF1, the association between choroidal nodules and retinal vascular abnormalities (RVAs) has been reported.

We modified it as suggested

Please correct: OCTA has “enabled” us

We modified it as suggested by the reviewer.

Methods

Please state if IOP was measured and please state if patients with glaucoma or borderline IOP were excluded, as this can influence RNFL and GCL- IPL thickness values.

Please correct: Remove the word “Furthermore”…… 3 different levels (l1, L2, and L3…)

We added the corrections suggested

Results

Please evaluate RNFL and GCL excluding patients with glioma in order to confirm significance results. If, following statistical analysis, the results change please comment accordingly in discussion.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. As correctly stated by reviewer cases of gliomas were present in our cohort; however, considering the post chiasmatic/optic radiations position of the finding, we did not rule out these patients from the statistical analysis. In this regard, no previous evidence has been reported in literature about a possible decrease in vascular density by OCTA in the choroid of patients with postchiasmatic gliomas. Moreover, we deem that n=3/31 patients does not represent a significant number of patients interfering with the significance of the findings in our study.

Discussion

The authors state: “A reduced RNFL thickness was previously reported in patients with NF1 and optic pathway gliomas (17,18). Thus, the measurement of RNFL thickness has been proposed as a useful tool to screen NF1 patients for the presence of gliomas (17). However, only 3 patients in our cohort had a optic pathway glioma. Therefore, RNFL thickness may be reduced in patients with NF1 even in the absence of this complication.” There are publications on RNFL thinning in patients with optic nerve glioma (Chang L, et al. Optical coherence tomography in the evaluation of neurofibromatosis type-1 subjects with optic pathway gliomas. J AAPOS 2010; 14:511-517.; Topcu-Yilmaz P, et al. Investigation of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in patients with neurofibromatosis-1. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2014; 88:172-176.)

but also RNFL thinning in adult patients WITHOUT optic nerve glioma (Abdolrahimzadeh S, et al. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography evidence of retinal nerve fibre layer and ganglion cell loss in adult patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. Retina 2016; 36:75-81). Furthermore, some authors have studied the peripapillary RNFL and some also the macular RNFL.

This section would benefit with some discussion, please mention the relevant references above when discussing the results on RNFL thickness.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We added the suggested studies dealing with the study of RNFL thickness in NF1 patients without glioma, discussing its potential role for further studies.

Citations and references

Please correct citations in text: in some sections the citation in the text is the author name and year of publication, in other sections there are numbers. Furthermore, references are not identified by numbers in the reference section. Kindly correct citations and references according to journal instructions.

We modified the references style as suggested by the reviewer

Reference 16 is missing in the reference section when the authors refer to the previous study on choroidal thickness, Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:789-793.

References 17, and 18 are missing in the reference section when the authors refer to RNFL thinning, Chang L et al and Topcu-Yilmaz P et al.

Please carefully check citations and reference list for accuracy throughout.

All the references have been carefully checked and reordered

Reviewer #2: Very interesting study

one major remark: No data on MRI of the brain was given, if not all NF1 patients and NF1 suspected patients have undergone an MRI, no conclusions related to the RNFL can be drawn

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We deem that our study has an ophthalmological perspective and the evaluation of MRI data, beside the individuation of 3 postchiasmatic gliomas in 3 out 31 patients with confirmed diagnosis of NF1, falls outside the topic of this study. Moreover, MRI findings are not very unlikely to interfere with the alterations reported in choroidal vasculature and RNFL thinning measure by OCT.

We better discussed our findings dealing with RNFL thinning in the discussion paragraph.

Submitted filename: PLOS one Answers reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Apr 2021

Ocular biometric parameters changes and choroidal vascular abnormalities in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 evaluated by OCT-A

PONE-D-21-01698R1

Dear Dr. Ferro Desideri,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

26 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-01698R1

Ocular biometric parameters changes and choroidal vascular abnormalities in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 evaluated by OCT-A

Dear Dr. Ferro Desideri:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alfred S Lewin

Section Editor

PLOS ONE