A Comparison Among Different Automatically Segmented Slabs to Assess Neovascular AMD using Swept Source OCT Angiography.
AMD
OCTA
neovascular
neovascularization
Journal
Translational vision science & technology
ISSN: 2164-2591
Titre abrégé: Transl Vis Sci Technol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595919
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
23
11
2018
accepted:
09
01
2018
entrez:
4
4
2019
pubmed:
4
4
2019
medline:
4
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We systematically compare the intermodality and interreader agreement in age-related macular degeneration(AMD)-associated neovascularization assessment for optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images obtained using different slabs. We collected data from 48 patients (50 eyes) with type 1 or 2 neovascularization (NV) and AMD. Subjects were imaged with a swept source (SS)-OCTA system. For each eye, three OCTA en face images generated from three different slabs were exported: (1) the outer retina to choriocapillaris (ORCC) image, (2) the choriocapillaris (CC) image, and (3) the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE)-RPE fit image. Each image was graded by two readers to assess interreader variability and a single image for each modality was used to assess the intermodality variability. In the assessment of type 1 NV, mean absolute interreader difference between measured NV areas was 0.19, 0.30, and 0.16 mm The RPE-RPE fit OCTA images have the highest interreader agreement and deliver larger measurements in type 1 lesions. OCTA imaging may be used in ongoing trials of potential novel treatments for NV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30941265
doi: 10.1167/tvst.8.2.8
pii: TVST-18-1253
pmc: PMC6438244
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
8Références
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;122(4):564-72
pubmed: 15078675
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
Ophthalmology. 2013 Apr;120(4):844-51
pubmed: 23332590
Am J Ophthalmol. 2014 Oct;158(4):769-779.e2
pubmed: 25034111
Eye (Lond). 2015 Jul;29(7):932-5
pubmed: 25976641
Ophthalmology. 2015 Sep;122(9):1846-53.e5
pubmed: 26143666
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct;160(4):739-48.e2
pubmed: 26164826
Ophthalmic Res. 2015;54(2):57-63
pubmed: 26201877
Retina. 2015 Nov;35(11):2212-8
pubmed: 26441269
Retina. 2015 Nov;35(11):2260-4
pubmed: 26469535
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Apr;164:80-8
pubmed: 26851725
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jun;123(6):1309-19
pubmed: 26876696
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Sep;169:235-248
pubmed: 27349411
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Sep;169:189-198
pubmed: 27394033
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 Jul 1;57(9):OCT307-13
pubmed: 27409487
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 Jul 1;57(9):OCT314-23
pubmed: 27409488
Acta Ophthalmol. 2017 Aug;95(5):e425-e426
pubmed: 27496070
Retina. 2017 Feb;37(2):247-256
pubmed: 27628926
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 Mar 1;58(3):1506-1513
pubmed: 28273317
Retina. 2018 Feb;38(2):220-230
pubmed: 28582276
Ophthalmology. 2018 Feb;125(2):255-266
pubmed: 28964581
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 Oct 1;58(12):5098-5104
pubmed: 28986595
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018 Nov;67:30-55
pubmed: 30059755
Am J Ophthalmol. 1998 Jul;126(1):59-69
pubmed: 9683150