Diagnostic capability of three-dimensional macular parameters for glaucoma using optical coherence tomography volume scans

Alice C. Verticchio Vercellin, Firas Jassim, Linda Yi-Chieh Poon, Edem Tsikata, Boy Braaf, Sneha Shah, Geulah Ben-David, Eric Shieh, Ramon Lee, Huseyin Simavli, Christian J. Que, Georgia Papadogeorgou, Rong Guo, Benjamin J. Vakoc, Brett E. Bouma, Johannes F. de Boer, Teresa C. Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

PURPOSE. To compare the diagnostic capability of three-dimensional (3D) macular parameters against traditional two-dimensional (2D) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. To determine if manual correction and interpolation of B-scans improve the ability of 3D macular parameters to diagnose glaucoma. METHODS. A total of 101 open angle glaucoma patients (29 with early glaucoma) and 57 healthy subjects had peripapillary 2D RNFL thickness and 3D macular volume scans. Four parameters were calculated for six different-sized annuli: total macular thickness (M-thickness), total macular volume (M-volume), ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness, and GCC volume of the innermost 3 macular layers (retinal nerve fiber layer + ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer). All macular parameters were calculated with and without correction and interpolation of frames with artifacts. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were calculated for all the parameters. RESULTS. The 3D macular parameter with the best diagnostic performance was GCC-volume-34, with an inner diameter of 3 mm and an outer of 4 mm. The AUROC for RNFL thickness and GCC-volume-34 were statistically similar for all regions (global: RNFL thickness 0.956, GCC-volume-34 0.939, P value = 0.3827), except for the temporal GCC-volume-34, which was significantly better than temporal RNFL thickness (P value = 0.0067). Correction of artifacts did not significantly change the AUROC of macular parameters (P values between 0.8452 and 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS. The diagnostic performance of best macular parameters (GCC-volume-34 and GCC-thickness-34) were similar to or better than 2D RNFL thickness. Manual correction of artifacts with data interpolation is unnecessary in the clinical setting.
LanguageEnglish
Pages4998-5010
JournalInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Volume59
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Cite this

Vercellin, Alice C. Verticchio ; Jassim, Firas ; Poon, Linda Yi-Chieh ; Tsikata, Edem ; Braaf, Boy ; Shah, Sneha ; Ben-David, Geulah ; Shieh, Eric ; Lee, Ramon ; Simavli, Huseyin ; Que, Christian J. ; Papadogeorgou, Georgia ; Guo, Rong ; Vakoc, Benjamin J. ; Bouma, Brett E. ; de Boer, Johannes F. ; Chen, Teresa C. / Diagnostic capability of three-dimensional macular parameters for glaucoma using optical coherence tomography volume scans. In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2018 ; Vol. 59, No. 12. pp. 4998-5010.
@article{78e4feb4d0ea42068f2763da86f0ee60,
title = "Diagnostic capability of three-dimensional macular parameters for glaucoma using optical coherence tomography volume scans",
abstract = "PURPOSE. To compare the diagnostic capability of three-dimensional (3D) macular parameters against traditional two-dimensional (2D) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. To determine if manual correction and interpolation of B-scans improve the ability of 3D macular parameters to diagnose glaucoma. METHODS. A total of 101 open angle glaucoma patients (29 with early glaucoma) and 57 healthy subjects had peripapillary 2D RNFL thickness and 3D macular volume scans. Four parameters were calculated for six different-sized annuli: total macular thickness (M-thickness), total macular volume (M-volume), ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness, and GCC volume of the innermost 3 macular layers (retinal nerve fiber layer + ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer). All macular parameters were calculated with and without correction and interpolation of frames with artifacts. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were calculated for all the parameters. RESULTS. The 3D macular parameter with the best diagnostic performance was GCC-volume-34, with an inner diameter of 3 mm and an outer of 4 mm. The AUROC for RNFL thickness and GCC-volume-34 were statistically similar for all regions (global: RNFL thickness 0.956, GCC-volume-34 0.939, P value = 0.3827), except for the temporal GCC-volume-34, which was significantly better than temporal RNFL thickness (P value = 0.0067). Correction of artifacts did not significantly change the AUROC of macular parameters (P values between 0.8452 and 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS. The diagnostic performance of best macular parameters (GCC-volume-34 and GCC-thickness-34) were similar to or better than 2D RNFL thickness. Manual correction of artifacts with data interpolation is unnecessary in the clinical setting.",
author = "Vercellin, {Alice C. Verticchio} and Firas Jassim and Poon, {Linda Yi-Chieh} and Edem Tsikata and Boy Braaf and Sneha Shah and Geulah Ben-David and Eric Shieh and Ramon Lee and Huseyin Simavli and Que, {Christian J.} and Georgia Papadogeorgou and Rong Guo and Vakoc, {Benjamin J.} and Bouma, {Brett E.} and {de Boer}, {Johannes F.} and Chen, {Teresa C.}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1167/iovs.18-23813",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "4998--5010",
journal = "Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science",
issn = "0146-0404",
number = "12",

}

Vercellin, ACV, Jassim, F, Poon, LY-C, Tsikata, E, Braaf, B, Shah, S, Ben-David, G, Shieh, E, Lee, R, Simavli, H, Que, CJ, Papadogeorgou, G, Guo, R, Vakoc, BJ, Bouma, BE, de Boer, JF & Chen, TC 2018, 'Diagnostic capability of three-dimensional macular parameters for glaucoma using optical coherence tomography volume scans', Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 4998-5010. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-23813

Diagnostic capability of three-dimensional macular parameters for glaucoma using optical coherence tomography volume scans. / Vercellin, Alice C. Verticchio; Jassim, Firas; Poon, Linda Yi-Chieh; Tsikata, Edem; Braaf, Boy; Shah, Sneha; Ben-David, Geulah; Shieh, Eric; Lee, Ramon; Simavli, Huseyin; Que, Christian J.; Papadogeorgou, Georgia; Guo, Rong; Vakoc, Benjamin J.; Bouma, Brett E.; de Boer, Johannes F.; Chen, Teresa C.

In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Vol. 59, No. 12, 2018, p. 4998-5010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic capability of three-dimensional macular parameters for glaucoma using optical coherence tomography volume scans

AU - Vercellin, Alice C. Verticchio

AU - Jassim, Firas

AU - Poon, Linda Yi-Chieh

AU - Tsikata, Edem

AU - Braaf, Boy

AU - Shah, Sneha

AU - Ben-David, Geulah

AU - Shieh, Eric

AU - Lee, Ramon

AU - Simavli, Huseyin

AU - Que, Christian J.

AU - Papadogeorgou, Georgia

AU - Guo, Rong

AU - Vakoc, Benjamin J.

AU - Bouma, Brett E.

AU - de Boer, Johannes F.

AU - Chen, Teresa C.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - PURPOSE. To compare the diagnostic capability of three-dimensional (3D) macular parameters against traditional two-dimensional (2D) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. To determine if manual correction and interpolation of B-scans improve the ability of 3D macular parameters to diagnose glaucoma. METHODS. A total of 101 open angle glaucoma patients (29 with early glaucoma) and 57 healthy subjects had peripapillary 2D RNFL thickness and 3D macular volume scans. Four parameters were calculated for six different-sized annuli: total macular thickness (M-thickness), total macular volume (M-volume), ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness, and GCC volume of the innermost 3 macular layers (retinal nerve fiber layer + ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer). All macular parameters were calculated with and without correction and interpolation of frames with artifacts. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were calculated for all the parameters. RESULTS. The 3D macular parameter with the best diagnostic performance was GCC-volume-34, with an inner diameter of 3 mm and an outer of 4 mm. The AUROC for RNFL thickness and GCC-volume-34 were statistically similar for all regions (global: RNFL thickness 0.956, GCC-volume-34 0.939, P value = 0.3827), except for the temporal GCC-volume-34, which was significantly better than temporal RNFL thickness (P value = 0.0067). Correction of artifacts did not significantly change the AUROC of macular parameters (P values between 0.8452 and 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS. The diagnostic performance of best macular parameters (GCC-volume-34 and GCC-thickness-34) were similar to or better than 2D RNFL thickness. Manual correction of artifacts with data interpolation is unnecessary in the clinical setting.

AB - PURPOSE. To compare the diagnostic capability of three-dimensional (3D) macular parameters against traditional two-dimensional (2D) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. To determine if manual correction and interpolation of B-scans improve the ability of 3D macular parameters to diagnose glaucoma. METHODS. A total of 101 open angle glaucoma patients (29 with early glaucoma) and 57 healthy subjects had peripapillary 2D RNFL thickness and 3D macular volume scans. Four parameters were calculated for six different-sized annuli: total macular thickness (M-thickness), total macular volume (M-volume), ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness, and GCC volume of the innermost 3 macular layers (retinal nerve fiber layer + ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer). All macular parameters were calculated with and without correction and interpolation of frames with artifacts. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were calculated for all the parameters. RESULTS. The 3D macular parameter with the best diagnostic performance was GCC-volume-34, with an inner diameter of 3 mm and an outer of 4 mm. The AUROC for RNFL thickness and GCC-volume-34 were statistically similar for all regions (global: RNFL thickness 0.956, GCC-volume-34 0.939, P value = 0.3827), except for the temporal GCC-volume-34, which was significantly better than temporal RNFL thickness (P value = 0.0067). Correction of artifacts did not significantly change the AUROC of macular parameters (P values between 0.8452 and 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS. The diagnostic performance of best macular parameters (GCC-volume-34 and GCC-thickness-34) were similar to or better than 2D RNFL thickness. Manual correction of artifacts with data interpolation is unnecessary in the clinical setting.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85055072085&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30326067

U2 - 10.1167/iovs.18-23813

DO - 10.1167/iovs.18-23813

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 4998

EP - 5010

JO - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

T2 - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

JF - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

SN - 0146-0404

IS - 12

ER -