November 2014
Volume 55, Issue 11
Free
Retina  |   November 2014
A Comparison of Progressive Loss of the Ellipsoid Zone (EZ) Band in Autosomal Dominant and X-Linked Retinitis Pigmentosa
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Cindy X. Cai
    College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Kirsten G. Locke
    Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas, United States
  • Rithambara Ramachandran
    Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • David G. Birch
    Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas, United States
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States
  • Donald C. Hood
    Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
    Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Correspondence: Donald C. Hood, 406 Schermerhorn, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA; dch3@columbia.edu
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science November 2014, Vol.55, 7417-7422. doi:10.1167/iovs.14-15013
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Cindy X. Cai, Kirsten G. Locke, Rithambara Ramachandran, David G. Birch, Donald C. Hood; A Comparison of Progressive Loss of the Ellipsoid Zone (EZ) Band in Autosomal Dominant and X-Linked Retinitis Pigmentosa. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(11):7417-7422. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-15013.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose.: In patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), the inner segment ellipsoid zone (EZ; also known as the inner segment/outer segment [IS/OS] border) is a marker of the usable visual field at a given point in time and of the progression of the disease over time. Here we compare the change in the width per year of the EZ band in patients with autosomal dominant (ad) and x-linked (xl) RP.

Methods.: Using optical coherence tomography (OCT), 9-mm horizontal and vertical line scans through the fovea were obtained for one eye of 26 xlRP patients and 33 adRP patients. Scans were repeated on average 2.0 years later (range, 0.6–4.8 years). Using a manual segmentation procedure, the EZ band was delineated and its horizontal width (HW) and vertical width (VW) were determined.

Results.: The adRP and xlRP patients had similar initial EZ HW (xlRP: 11.8 ± 5.4°, adRP: 12.4 ± 6.3°, P = 0.69) and VW (xlRP: 8.5 ± 4.9°, adRP: 11.4 ± 7.1°, P = 0.09). However, between visits the absolute loss and percent loss of the EZ width per year was significantly greater for xlRP than adRP for both HW (xlRP: 1.0 ± 0.6°/y, 9.6 ± 5.6%/y; adRP: 0.4 ± 0.5°/y, 3.4 ± 5.4%/y; P < 0.001) and VW (xlRP: 0.8 ± 0.8°/y, 9.2 ± 8.9%/y; adRP: 0.3 ± 0.5°/y, 4.2 ± 6.4%/y; P < 0.01). There was a weak correlation between the loss of EZ width per year and the initial width for xlRP (r2 = 0.17, P = 0.036), but no correlation for adRP (r2 = 0.004, P = 0.73). The test–retest difference of EZ HW was 0.2 ± 0.5°.

Conclusions.: The OCT data here support a faster rate of loss per year in the case of xlRP. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100230.)

Introduction
Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) describes a heterogeneous set of hereditary retinal dystrophies characterized by the progressive degeneration of rod and cone photoreceptor cells.13 The genetic basis of this disease is quite complex. At least 45 loci have been identified to be responsible for the disorder.4 It can be inherited as an autosomal-dominant (ad) condition (approximately 30%–40% of cases), autosomal-recessive condition (50%–60%), x–linked (xl) trait (5%–15%), and may even follow non-Mendelian inheritance patterns such as mitochondrial inheritance.2 The xl disease is the most severe form of RP.5 These patients classically lose night vision within the first decade of life, experience reduced visual fields by the second decade, and finally suffer from severely decreased visual acuity by the fourth decade. By contrast, autosomal dominant forms are milder with reasonably good visual acuity often preserved until the sixth or seventh decade.58 
Most studies agree that xlRP starts earlier than adRP. However, some find that xlRP progresses faster than adRP thus contributing to its more severe phenotype, while others do not.811 Most of these studies used electroretinography (ERG) or visual fields to follow disease progression; however, newer studies, suggest that optical coherence tomography (OCT) may be a more sensitive method to study RP.1215 
One of the highly reflective structures in the outer retina that can be detected on OCT is the inner segment ellipsoid zone (EZ; also known as the inner segment/outer segment [IS/OS] line).16,17 This is an important anatomic landmark in RP as its disappearance marks the boundary between healthy and unhealthy retina.18 The point where this band disappears corresponds to the edge of the usable visual field. In particular, there are large changes in visual field sensitivities on either side of the edge of the EZ band.13 In addition, the presence of the EZ band has been found to correlate with visual acuity.19,20 
Recently, the EZ band has been proposed as a reliable marker of progression in RP, one that is more sensitive than currently used measures.1214 Birch et al.12 found that 95% of all test–retest differences were less than 0.43° with retest variability considerably less than values typically reported for full-field ERG cone flicker, kinetic perimetry, and static perimetry. Ramachandran et al.14 also found similar test–retest differences and that the EZ was a more sensitive marker of change than other parameters derived from OCT, such as thickness. Here, we measure the edge of the EZ band in patients examined over a 2-year period to test the hypothesis that the rate of xlRP disease progression is faster than that of adRP. 
Methods
Subjects
Twenty-six xlRP patients (mean, 17.7 years; range, 12–31 years) and 33 adRP patients (mean, 55.0 years; range, 15–72 years) were included in the study.12 Because of the inclusion requirements, which included regions with and without a discernible EZ band within the central 30° of the retina, the adRP sample was significantly older than the xlRP sample (t = 13.3; P < 0.0001). The xlRP patients were selected from a larger group of patients involved in a double-blind treatment trial (docosahexaenoic acid [DHA] versus placebo; clinicaltrials.gov NCT00100230).23 The adRP patients were selected from a preexisting database of patients followed clinically at the Retina Foundation of the Southwest. The xlRP patients were from pedigrees where males were more severely affected than females and obligate carriers showed minimal or mild disease. The adRP families had at least three consecutive generations affected. All patients were screened for mutations, which were found in almost all cases. Of the 26 patients with xlRP, 25 had an RPGR mutation. Of the 33 adRP patients, 19 had a RHO mutation, 1 IMPDH1, 2 KLHL7, 1 PRPH2, 2 PRPF3, 2 PRPF31, and 1 RP1. The demographic information regarding these patients is located in the Table. Cystoid macular edema (CME), if present, was mild and in general did not affect the EZ band. Only 1 adRP patient had a break in the EZ band in the macular region due to CME, but this break did not obscure the edge where the IS/OS met the RPE. Additionally, the patients had to have at least one repeat visit at least 7 months later. One eye was chosen from each patient for analysis. When multiple scans were available, the one with the clearest EZ bands was chosen. 
Table
 
Demographics of the Individual xlRP and adRP Patients
Table
 
Demographics of the Individual xlRP and adRP Patients
ID Number Age, y Mutation Sex BCVA
xlRP
 3347 23 RPGR M 1
 5500 17 RPGR M 0.67
 6611 21 RPGR M 0.67
 6951 20 NA* M 0.8
 7617 13 RPGR M 1
 7669 17 RPGR M 1
 7715 16 RPGR M 0.67
 7765 14 RPGR M 0.5
 7811 14 RPGR M 0.8
 7846 20 RPGR M 0.33
 7938 17 RPGR M 0.33
 7956 13 RPGR M 0.5
 7993 13 RPGR M 0.4
 7994 17 RPGR M 0.8
 8011 31 RPGR M 0.67
 8017 16 RPGR M 0.67
 8083 15 RPGR M 0.8
 8124 20 RPGR M 0.67
 8157 13 RPGR M 0.8
 8271 12 RPGR M 0.5
 8272 22 RPGR M 0.5
 8280 30 RPGR M 0.8
 8367 16 RPGR M 1
 8553 21 RPGR M 0.8
 8555 14 RPGR M 0.67
 9208 15 RPGR M 0.5
adRP
 333 56 RHO P23H M 0.5
 652 64 RHO P23H F 0.63
 2411 65 RHO P23H M 0.33
 2670 65 RHO C185A M 0.67
 2826 37 RHO P23H F 0.8
 3540 49 RHO P23H F 1
 4476 44 RHO P23H F 0.8
 4545 72 RHO P23H F 0.67
 4828 69 KLHL7 M 0.8
 4829 62 KLHL7 M 1
 5740 47 RHO P170A F 1
 5770 71 RHO P23H M 0.5
 5784 54 RHO P23H F 0.8
 6043 71 RHO P170A F 1
 6922 55 RHO P23H M 1.2
 6931 68 RHO A190A F 1
 6982 45 NA M 0.63
 7443 55 RHO T553C M 1.2
 7636 62 RHO P23H F 0.5
 7989 64 NA F 1.2
 8038 48 NA F 0.3
 8126 15 IMPDH1 M 0.63
 8583 67 RP1 M 0.63
 8794 59 NA F 1.2
 8898 17 PRPF31 M 0.63
 9207 61 PRPH2 F 0.8
 9715 49 RHO P23H M 1.2
 10083 60 PRPF31 M 0.5
 10196 58 RHO G64X F 0.33
 10258 62 NA M 0.63
 10467 47 PRPF3 F 0.63
 10468 55 PRPF3 F 0.63
 10842 43 RHO P23H F 0.5
Frequency Domain OCT Measurements
Nine-millimeter horizontal and vertical line scans (HLS and VLS, respectively) through the fovea, taken with Spectralis HRA+OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Vista, CA, USA) using the eye-tracking feature (ART) and an average of 100 images, were obtained for one eye of each patient at two visits. The length of follow-up was similar in the two groups (xlRP: mean 2.0 years; range, 1.9–2.3 years; adRP: mean 2.0 years; range, 0.6–4.8 years). One of the 26 xlRP patients did not have VLSs. Four of the 33 adRP patients did not have a VLS, and one did not have VLSs meeting study criteria (i.e., the EZ was not discernible). 
All scans had a quality index of greater than 25 dB (range, 0–40 dB). Using a manual segmentation procedure,18,21 two boundaries were identified: the proximal edge of the retinal pigment epithelium (pRPE) located adjacent to the photoreceptor outer segments and the EZ band, labeled in magenta and green, respectively, in Figure 1. For all scans, the nasal and temporal edges of the EZ band were defined as the locations where the EZ band met the pRPE. The width of the EZ band was defined as the distance between these two locations and designated the horizontal width (HW) when obtained from the HLS or vertical width (VW) from VLS (Fig. 1). This retinal distance is represented in degrees assuming a conversion of 0.289 mm/degree. The rate of annual loss was estimated for each patient by dividing the change between the initial and final visits by the number of years between visits. 
Figure 1
 
Horizontal midline frequency domain optical coherence tomography scan through the fovea with two borders manually segmented. The HW of the EZ band is defined as the distance between the nasal and temporal end points (i.e., where the middle of the EZ band merges with the pRPE).
Figure 1
 
Horizontal midline frequency domain optical coherence tomography scan through the fovea with two borders manually segmented. The HW of the EZ band is defined as the distance between the nasal and temporal end points (i.e., where the middle of the EZ band merges with the pRPE).
In order to test the repeat reliability of measuring the EZ width, the HW from a subset of adRP patients with Pro23His mutations in the rhodopsin protein (n = 13) was measured on two separate occasions by the same grader using the same scans. The grader was not allowed to consult the first set of measurements. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess repeatability. 
Two-tailed t-tests were used to test the hypothesis that adRP and xlRP did not differ from each other. For Pearson correlations, a two-tailed P value was generated to evaluate significance. 
Results
At the initial visit, the xlRP and adRP patients had similar EZ band HW (xlRP: 11.8 ± 5.4°, adRP: 12.4 ± 6.3°, P = 0.69) and VW (xlRP: 8.5 ± 4.9°, adRP: 11.4 ± 7.1°, P = 0.09), as expected given the inclusion criteria. The initial HW and VW showed a strong correlation in both the xlRP and adRP groups (xlRP r2 = 0.91, P < 0.0001; adRP r2 = 0.91, P < 0.0001; Fig. 2). 
Figure 2
 
Scatter plots of the initial horizontal and vertical EZ widths for the adRP (blue) and xlRP (red) patients. Individuals are plotted as open circles, and the solid line is the best fitting linear line. The correlation for the two groups is as follows: xlRP r2 = 0.89, P < 0.0001; adRP r2 = 0.91, P < 0.0001.
Figure 2
 
Scatter plots of the initial horizontal and vertical EZ widths for the adRP (blue) and xlRP (red) patients. Individuals are plotted as open circles, and the solid line is the best fitting linear line. The correlation for the two groups is as follows: xlRP r2 = 0.89, P < 0.0001; adRP r2 = 0.91, P < 0.0001.
Figure 3 shows the HLS and VLS from a pair of sample xlRP and adRP eyes both with an initial EZ HW of 10°. At higher magnification (insets), the edges of the EZ band at the initial and follow-up visits are marked in dotted yellow and solid yellow, respectively. For most eyes, the edges of the EZ band move closer to the fovea at the follow-up visit consistent with the known shrinking of the EZ over time, although this was not always the case. For example, the VLS of patient B (lower right panel in Fig. 3) demonstrated a slightly wider EZ band at the later visit. In particular, 26 of the 26 (100%) xlRP eyes and 24 of the 33 (73%) adRP eyes demonstrated a loss of HW, while 23 of the 25 (92%) xlRP eyes and 22 of 28 (79%) adRP eyes showed a loss of VW. Thus, a greater percentage of xlRP eyes showed loss when compared to adRP, and the loss in HW was similar to the loss in VW in both genetic groups. 
Figure 3
 
The horizontal and vertical scans from an xlRP and adRP patient both with similar initial horizontal EZ width. Insets show higher magnification of the EZ band with endings marked. Dashed vertical yellow line indicates the end of the EZ band at the initial visit, while the solid yellow line is for the last visit. The percent loss of the EZ width per year for each patient is located in the upper left hand corner of each panel.
Figure 3
 
The horizontal and vertical scans from an xlRP and adRP patient both with similar initial horizontal EZ width. Insets show higher magnification of the EZ band with endings marked. Dashed vertical yellow line indicates the end of the EZ band at the initial visit, while the solid yellow line is for the last visit. The percent loss of the EZ width per year for each patient is located in the upper left hand corner of each panel.
In most cases, xlRP patients demonstrated a greater degree of loss of EZ width compared to adRP with the same initial EZ HW. This can be seen qualitatively as a wider difference between the dotted and solid green lines in patient A (xlRP) compared to patient B (adRP) in Figure 3. In Figure 4, the percent of EZ width loss per year for each patient is plotted as open circles, where the data for the patients' scans in Figure 3 are coded in color (see figure caption). The estimated annual loss of HW over the mean 2-year follow-up was significantly greater (P < 0.001) for xlRP (1.0 ± 0.6°/y) than for adRP (0.4 ± 0.5°/y) patients, as was the percent loss per year (P < 0.001), 9.6 ± 5.6%/y (xlRP) vs. 3.4 ± 5.4%/y (adRP; Fig. 4). Loss of VW showed a similar pattern where degree loss per year was significantly (P = 0.02) greater in xlRP (0.8 ± 0.8°) than adRP (0.3 ± 0.5°) in addition to the percent loss per year (xlRP: 9.2 ± 8.9%/; range, adRP 4.2 ± 6.4%/y, P = 0.02; Fig. 4). The percent loss per year of the HW was not statistically different from the VW in either the xlRP or adRP groups (P = 0.28 and P = 0.91, respectively). 
Figure 4
 
Loss per year (in percent) of the EZ band horizontal (a) and vertical (b) widths. Individuals are represented as open circles and the mean ± standard error as solid squares. The patients whose scans are shown in Figure 3 are represented as solid circles, Patient A as dark purple, and patient B as light purple.
Figure 4
 
Loss per year (in percent) of the EZ band horizontal (a) and vertical (b) widths. Individuals are represented as open circles and the mean ± standard error as solid squares. The patients whose scans are shown in Figure 3 are represented as solid circles, Patient A as dark purple, and patient B as light purple.
There was no correlation between the loss of the EZ HW per year and the initial EZ HW for either xlRP (r2 = 0.026, P = 0.41) or adRP (r2 = 0.004, P = 0.73). There was a weak correlation between the loss of the EZ VW and initial EZ VW for xlRP (r2 = 0.17, P = 0.036) but no correlation for adRP (r2 = 0.014, P = 0.54). 
The repeat reliability of the EZ width was tested through an analysis of the HLSs of a subset of adRP patients on two separate occasions (see Methods). We chose patients with Pro23His for this purpose because they represented the largest genetic subgroup in the adRP database. In any case, the test–retest variability was comparable to that found in our previous studies.12,14 The mean difference between widths was 0.2° and 95% of all values fell within ±0.9°. These differences were independent of the average EZ width as shown in the Bland-Altman plot in Figure 5
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot showing the difference in EZ width from repeat analysis as a function of mean EZ band width. Mean difference in EZ width (solid black line) and 95% limits of agreement (black dashed line) are shown. Difference of 0° is shown as a red dashed line.
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot showing the difference in EZ width from repeat analysis as a function of mean EZ band width. Mean difference in EZ width (solid black line) and 95% limits of agreement (black dashed line) are shown. Difference of 0° is shown as a red dashed line.
Discussion
Given the similar initial EZ widths and length of follow-up between adRP and xlRP, the OCT data suggest a faster rate of progression in xlRP (9.4%/y) compared to adRP (3.8%/y). Assuming a roughly circular region of preserved retina and estimating the diameter as the average of the EZ HW and VW for each individual, there was, on average, a decrease in the preserved retinal area of 19.2%/y for xlRP and 7.9%/y for adRP. The xlRP eyes lost functioning retinal area at a 2.5 times faster rate than did the adRP eyes. This is a slightly larger difference than the ratio of visual field loss reported by Sandberg et al.8 who found a 4.7% loss of visual field area for xl RPGR mutations compared to 2.9% for the ad RHO mutation. Birch et al.9 also found a similar difference in loss of rod specific visual field area, 4.4% for xlRP and 2.0% for adRP.9 Our results are within the range of changes in visual field area reported by others without regard to genetic subtypes: 4.6%/y by Berson et al.22 and 14% to 17%/y by Massof et al.10 
On the other hand, Massof et al.10 found no difference in the visual field change between the xlRP (n = 12) and adRP (n = 28) groups. Both followed a first-order exponential decay model with statistically similar time constants, although as expected the xlRP patients started to lose field area at an earlier age. According to their model, if we catch adRP and xlRP at equivalent points along the common exponential decay curve and follow them for the same amount of time, we should find the same percent decrease per year in the two populations. In our study, we followed the two populations from equivalent points, as they had similar starting EZ widths, and followed both populations for 2 years, and yet found a difference. There are two methodological differences between our studies. First, they used data from visual fields and we used OCT scans. Second, they excluded patients whose fields had either increased or remained stable over the course of their study, while we did not exclude those patients. 
One of the strengths of this study is that the OCTs were obtained from patients recruited for prospective studies. Thus it avoids the limitation of retrospective studies, which can contain a selection bias toward evaluation of only those patients who return because they believe their visual function is deteriorating.22 On the other hand, the fact that the xlRP patients were part of a study to see if nutritional DHA supplement might slow progression raises a concern. However, if DHA did slow progression, then this should decrease the differences we find between the xlRP and adRP groups and not affect our main point of a difference in rates. In any case, there did not appear to be a difference in progression of placebo and treatment groups, at least as measured with the ERG.23 
There are, however, limitations to the EZ width method. It requires that the patients have a discernible EZ bands within the scan area. In addition, current technology restricts the scans to the central 30° of retina. These two factors preclude the tracking of patients with less advanced disease, as well as those with very advanced disease. 
In any case, by tracking the loss of EZ width as a marker of disease progression, we find that xlRP progresses at a faster rate than adRP. 
Acknowledgments
Supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01-EY-09076, FDR-02543, and Fight for Sight Summer Student Fellowship. 
Disclosure: C.X. Cai, None; K.G. Locke, None; R. Ramachandran, None; D.G. Birch, None; D.C. Hood, None 
References
Berson EL. Retinitis pigmentosa. The Friedenwald Lecture. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993; 34: 1659–1676. [PubMed]
Hartong DT Berson EL Dryja TP. Retinitis pigmentosa. Lancet. 2006; 368: 1795–1809. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Heckenlively J. Retinitis Pigmentosa. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1988.
RetNet: Genes and Mapped Loci Causing Retinal Diseases. 2013. Available at: http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/retnet/disease.htm. Accessed October 26, 2014.
Merin S Auerbach E. Retinitis pigmentosa. Surv Ophthalmol. 1976; 20: 303–346. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bird AC. X-linked retinitis pigmentosa. Br J Ophthalmol. 1975; 59: 177–199. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fishman GA Farber MD Derlacki DJ. X-linked retinitis pigmentosa. Profile of clinical findings. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988; 106: 369–375. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sandberg MA Rosner B Weigel-DiFranco C Dryja TP Berson EL. Disease course of patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa due to RPGR gene mutations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 1298–1304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Birch DG Anderson JL Fish GE. Yearly rates of rod and cone functional loss in retinitis pigmentosa and cone-rod dystrophy. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106: 258–268. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Massof RW Dagnelie G Benzschawel T Palmer RW Finkelstein D. First order dynamics of visual field loss in retinitis pigmentosa. Clin Vision Sci. 1990; 5: 1–26.
Pearlman JT. Mathematical models of retinitis pigmentosa: a study of the rate of progress in the different genetic forms. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1979; 77: 643–656. [PubMed]
Birch DG Locke KG Wen Y Locke KI Hoffman DR Hood DC. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography measures of outer segment layer progression in patients with x-linked retinitis pigmentosa. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013; 131: 1143–1150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hood DC Ramachandran R Holopigian K Lazow M Birch DG Greenstein VC. Method for deriving visual field boundaries from OCT scans of patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Biomed Opt Express. 2011; 2: 1106–1114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ramachandran R Zhou L Locke KG Birch DG Hood DCA. Comparison of methods for tracking progression in x-linked retinitis pigmentosa using frequency domain OCT. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2013; 2: 1–9. [CrossRef]
Rangaswamy NV Patel HM Locke KG Hood DC Birch DG. A comparison of visual field sensitivity to photoreceptor thickness in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51: 4213–4219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Curcio CA Messinger JD Sloan KR Mitra A McGwin G Spaide RF. Human chorioretinal layer thicknesses measured in macula-wide, high-resolution histologic sections. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52: 3943–3954. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Spaide RF Curcio CA. Anatomical correlates to the bands seen in the outer retina by optical coherence tomography: literature review and model. Retina. 2011; 31: 1609–1619. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hood DC Lazow MA Locke KG Greenstein VC Birch DG. The Transition zone between healthy and diseased retina in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52: 101–108. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sandberg MA Brockhurst RJ Gaudio AR Berson EL. The association between visual acuity and central retinal thickness in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46: 3349–3354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aizawa S Mitamura Y Baba T Hagiwara A Ogata K Yamamoto S. Correlation between visual function and photoreceptor inner/outer segment junction in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Eye. 2009; 23: 304–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hood DC Lin CE Lazow MA Locke KG Zhang X Birch DG. Thickness of receptor and post-receptor retinal layers in patients with retinitis pigmentosa measured with frequency-domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50: 2328–2336. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Berson EL Sandberg MA Rosner B Birch DG Hanson AH. Natural course of retinitis pigmentosa over a three-year interval. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985; 99: 240–251. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hoffman DR Hughbanks-Wheaton DK Pearson NS Four-year placebo-controlled trial of docosahexaenoic acid in x-linked retinitis pigmentosa (DHAX Trial): a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014; 132: 866–873. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1
 
Horizontal midline frequency domain optical coherence tomography scan through the fovea with two borders manually segmented. The HW of the EZ band is defined as the distance between the nasal and temporal end points (i.e., where the middle of the EZ band merges with the pRPE).
Figure 1
 
Horizontal midline frequency domain optical coherence tomography scan through the fovea with two borders manually segmented. The HW of the EZ band is defined as the distance between the nasal and temporal end points (i.e., where the middle of the EZ band merges with the pRPE).
Figure 2
 
Scatter plots of the initial horizontal and vertical EZ widths for the adRP (blue) and xlRP (red) patients. Individuals are plotted as open circles, and the solid line is the best fitting linear line. The correlation for the two groups is as follows: xlRP r2 = 0.89, P < 0.0001; adRP r2 = 0.91, P < 0.0001.
Figure 2
 
Scatter plots of the initial horizontal and vertical EZ widths for the adRP (blue) and xlRP (red) patients. Individuals are plotted as open circles, and the solid line is the best fitting linear line. The correlation for the two groups is as follows: xlRP r2 = 0.89, P < 0.0001; adRP r2 = 0.91, P < 0.0001.
Figure 3
 
The horizontal and vertical scans from an xlRP and adRP patient both with similar initial horizontal EZ width. Insets show higher magnification of the EZ band with endings marked. Dashed vertical yellow line indicates the end of the EZ band at the initial visit, while the solid yellow line is for the last visit. The percent loss of the EZ width per year for each patient is located in the upper left hand corner of each panel.
Figure 3
 
The horizontal and vertical scans from an xlRP and adRP patient both with similar initial horizontal EZ width. Insets show higher magnification of the EZ band with endings marked. Dashed vertical yellow line indicates the end of the EZ band at the initial visit, while the solid yellow line is for the last visit. The percent loss of the EZ width per year for each patient is located in the upper left hand corner of each panel.
Figure 4
 
Loss per year (in percent) of the EZ band horizontal (a) and vertical (b) widths. Individuals are represented as open circles and the mean ± standard error as solid squares. The patients whose scans are shown in Figure 3 are represented as solid circles, Patient A as dark purple, and patient B as light purple.
Figure 4
 
Loss per year (in percent) of the EZ band horizontal (a) and vertical (b) widths. Individuals are represented as open circles and the mean ± standard error as solid squares. The patients whose scans are shown in Figure 3 are represented as solid circles, Patient A as dark purple, and patient B as light purple.
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot showing the difference in EZ width from repeat analysis as a function of mean EZ band width. Mean difference in EZ width (solid black line) and 95% limits of agreement (black dashed line) are shown. Difference of 0° is shown as a red dashed line.
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot showing the difference in EZ width from repeat analysis as a function of mean EZ band width. Mean difference in EZ width (solid black line) and 95% limits of agreement (black dashed line) are shown. Difference of 0° is shown as a red dashed line.
Table
 
Demographics of the Individual xlRP and adRP Patients
Table
 
Demographics of the Individual xlRP and adRP Patients
ID Number Age, y Mutation Sex BCVA
xlRP
 3347 23 RPGR M 1
 5500 17 RPGR M 0.67
 6611 21 RPGR M 0.67
 6951 20 NA* M 0.8
 7617 13 RPGR M 1
 7669 17 RPGR M 1
 7715 16 RPGR M 0.67
 7765 14 RPGR M 0.5
 7811 14 RPGR M 0.8
 7846 20 RPGR M 0.33
 7938 17 RPGR M 0.33
 7956 13 RPGR M 0.5
 7993 13 RPGR M 0.4
 7994 17 RPGR M 0.8
 8011 31 RPGR M 0.67
 8017 16 RPGR M 0.67
 8083 15 RPGR M 0.8
 8124 20 RPGR M 0.67
 8157 13 RPGR M 0.8
 8271 12 RPGR M 0.5
 8272 22 RPGR M 0.5
 8280 30 RPGR M 0.8
 8367 16 RPGR M 1
 8553 21 RPGR M 0.8
 8555 14 RPGR M 0.67
 9208 15 RPGR M 0.5
adRP
 333 56 RHO P23H M 0.5
 652 64 RHO P23H F 0.63
 2411 65 RHO P23H M 0.33
 2670 65 RHO C185A M 0.67
 2826 37 RHO P23H F 0.8
 3540 49 RHO P23H F 1
 4476 44 RHO P23H F 0.8
 4545 72 RHO P23H F 0.67
 4828 69 KLHL7 M 0.8
 4829 62 KLHL7 M 1
 5740 47 RHO P170A F 1
 5770 71 RHO P23H M 0.5
 5784 54 RHO P23H F 0.8
 6043 71 RHO P170A F 1
 6922 55 RHO P23H M 1.2
 6931 68 RHO A190A F 1
 6982 45 NA M 0.63
 7443 55 RHO T553C M 1.2
 7636 62 RHO P23H F 0.5
 7989 64 NA F 1.2
 8038 48 NA F 0.3
 8126 15 IMPDH1 M 0.63
 8583 67 RP1 M 0.63
 8794 59 NA F 1.2
 8898 17 PRPF31 M 0.63
 9207 61 PRPH2 F 0.8
 9715 49 RHO P23H M 1.2
 10083 60 PRPF31 M 0.5
 10196 58 RHO G64X F 0.33
 10258 62 NA M 0.63
 10467 47 PRPF3 F 0.63
 10468 55 PRPF3 F 0.63
 10842 43 RHO P23H F 0.5
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×