May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Visual Field Progression Using Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M. Fingeret
    Optometry, VA, Brooklyn, NY
    SUNY Optometry, New York, NY
  • M. Verghese
    Optometry, VA, Brooklyn, NY
  • L. Torres
    Optometry, VA, Brooklyn, NY
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M. Fingeret, Carl Zeiss Meditec, inc., C; M. Verghese, None; L. Torres, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 4001. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M. Fingeret, M. Verghese, L. Torres; Visual Field Progression Using Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA) . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):4001.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : While a number of scoring systems have been devised to detect visual field progression in clinical trials, there has been no accepted tool for clinical care. The Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA) software for the HFA II perimeter (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) uses empirically–determined significance limits for the variability in glaucomatous fields. Test point locations are flagged whenever change from baseline exceeds the variability in 95% of glaucomas. The pattern of significantly changing test points is evaluated using criteria from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT). The analysis is based upon confirmation of change, and uses two flags to note progression: three points on two successive fields (possible progression) and three points on three fields (likely progression)

Methods: : We performed a pilot study to determine the frequency which the GPA analysis suggested progression. Consecutive patients having a diagnosis of open angle glaucoma with at least five reliable visual fields done over a five–year period were eligible (6.4 MD +/– 2.3 SD). 51 patients (94 eyes) were enrolled with average age of 69.7 years SD +/–9.22.

Results: : 77.66% of the group showed no progression, 12.77% were flagged as possible progression and 9.57% were classified as likely progression. The group that showed progression had larger cupping (C/D .66 vs .52) than the no progression group, and were older (71.8 vs. 70.0). The central corneal thickness was similar in all groups and not a factor in determining progression (537 um in no progression vs. 553um in progression group)

Conclusions: : The EMGT found 45% in the treatment arm showed progression. Our study found fewer individuals (22.34%) progressing in a similar time period. The differences may be due to the type of patients enrolled, glaucoma staging, medications used, or other factors. Our results suggest that the GPA criterion for likely progression is at least 92.6% specific over a five–test sample. The monitoring for progression with perimetry is an important part of the evaluation. The GPA is a new tool that may be useful to recognize progression as opposed to variability. This study presents rates of progression occurring within a glaucomatous population.

Keywords: perimetry • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: natural history • development 

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.