Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness remains an excellent structural measure for use in the diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma.
25–27 It is highly repeatable; the average per-eye coefficient of variation in our repeatability cohort was 1.3%, which is similar to the 1.9% intravisit coefficient of variation reported previously for the Cirrus OCT (Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Inc.).
28 In our longitudinal cohort, the cross-sectional correlation between RNFLT and MD was 0.613. Longitudinally, by contrast, the correlation between the rates of change of RNFLT and MD was only 0.361. In part, this is because the range of values is narrower, and so the value of the correlation coefficient is reduced. However, it also suggests that other sources of information are needed to refine predictions of longitudinal functional change. As shown here, the reflectance of the RNFL appears to provide one such source. It is possible that reflectance will prove to be even more useful in eyes with very early damage and/or ocular hypertension. Importantly, reflectance information can be extracted from existing SD-OCT scans without hardware modifications.
It is important to note that the reflectance intensity ratio by itself was not predictive of functional change. It is not a replacement for using RNFLT. Instead, it provides a method that may be able to refine predictions made using RNFLT. Longitudinal changes observed in the reflectance must be considered in the context of changes observed in the RNFLT, and not interpreted in isolation.
It certainly is possible that the measure of reflectance intensity used here might be improved upon. Most commercial OCT instruments are optimized to visualize cross-sectional (B-scan) images and to measure the thickness of structures in the retina, not their reflectance. Consequently, it may be possible to improve the intensity data obtained. For example, improvements could involve removing the effects of vessel shadows, and/or taking into account the directionality of retinal reflectance.
7,8,29 Directionality is particularly important for cylindrical structures, such as axons and their aligned cytoskeletal components,
7 which our normalization procedures, therefore, do not address. Indeed, the test–retest variability of our measure shown in
Figure 2 still is more than 10 times higher than the variability of RNFLT measurement. Improvements in the repeatability of the reflectance intensity ratio would likely improve its use for prediction of functional change. In this study, the interaction between reflectance and thickness improved prediction of the rate of MD change, but this was only just significant with
P = 0.038. Accordingly, the standard deviation of residuals (i.e., predicted rate minus observed rate) was reduced by less than 5% by the inclusion of reflectance intensity ratio. If the test–retest variability of reflectance intensity could be improved further, then we would anticipate this
P value being reduced. Moreover, commercial instruments may apply automatic gain controls to maintain signal strength in a more ideal range, providing benefits to imaging a broader range of eyes, but potentially confounding reflectance intensity measurements (especially those without some internal normalization).
We also would note that it is possible that reflectance intensity may change before or after RNFL thinning. This study did not incorporate any potential time lag between the observed changes in the retina, since each measure was assumed to change linearly over time. Furthermore, we looked solely at concurrent rates of functional change; the aim was to predict the rate of functional loss during that same time period, rather than to predict subsequent functional loss.
Previous studies have used a narrow band around the RPE to normalize RNFL reflectance,
15,17 but used multiple B-scans at different radial distances from the center of the optic nerve head. By contrast, in this study a single circle scan at 6° from the center of the optic nerve head was used. This is consistent with the most common current clinical approach, but means fewer pixels of information are available (1536 for this analysis) and a more limited area of RNFL is assayed by the single circular scan. Using a thicker band of axial information extending all the way from the posterior border of the RNFL down to the RPE increased the number of available pixels, and so appears to give a more reliable measure of sub-RNFL reflectance when a single circle scan is used. Correspondingly, the test–retest variability of the reflectance intensity ratio was lower when using this thicker band. It should be noted, though, that while we tested several alternative methods for interscan normalization, these do not represent an exhaustive examination of all possibilities, and further improvement may be possible.
The data used in this study consist primarily of cases of early, well-managed glaucoma. Only 4 of the 53 eyes in the repeatability cohort, and 20 of 310 eyes in the longitudinal cohort, had MD worse than −6 dB, a value often taken to indicate moderate functional damage. Approximately half of the eyes did not yet have significant functional damage when assessed by MD alone. Therefore, this represents an extremely important clinical scenario, where early signs of functional progression are sought. Indeed, the secondary analyses hint that reflectance intensity may be more useful in “preperimetric glaucoma” than in eyes with established functional defects, although we cannot conclude this definitively at the present time. However, our conclusions have not been tested in cases of more severe glaucoma, and so it is not yet known whether reflectance intensity remains a useful prognostic measure later in the disease process or whether it represents a very early stage of structural damage. We also would note that this study aims to predict the rate of change of MD, because we sought a single continuous variable as the outcome measure to increase the statistical power of the analysis; yet this is known not to be a particularly sensitive measure of visual field change,
30 especially early in the disease process. Future studies are needed that examine pointwise progression, and/or with much larger cohorts that would enable assessment using binary definitions of progression and stability.
This study should be considered a “proof of principle,” rather than providing a measurement that is ready to be implemented into commercially-available instruments, given the high test–retest variability of the reflectance intensity ratio used here. However, the principle behind the measurement is something that can be qualitatively assessed already, even if quantitative assessment is not yet clinically available.
Figure 3 shows a magnified portion (for easier visualization) of the peripapillary RNFL B-scan shown in
Figure 1; together with the corresponding portion of a scan from the same eye 18 months later. On the date of the first (upper) scan, this participant had an average RNFLT of 91.2 μm and a reflectance intensity ratio averaged around the entire circle scan of 4.73. Using the variability estimate from
Table 2, this means that the 95% confidence interval for test–retest is (3.17, 6.29). By the date of the second (lower) scan, the RNFLT essentially was unchanged at 92.3 μm. However, the reflectance intensity ratio had decreased to 2.87. The nerve fiber layer is visibly less reflective in the lower panel. Within the same time period, the MD decreased from −5.0 dB on the date of the first scan to −7.6 dB on the date of the second scan. The results of this study suggested that clinicians should be on the lookout for similar decreases in RNFL reflectance, as they may correspond (as in this example) to worsening function.
In practice, light intensity and focus may vary between scans, with the result that changes in reflectance will not always be easily visible to the clinician. Furthermore, to map the raw intensity information to a range compatible with most common monitors and/or clinical printouts, raw intensity values are compressed to 256 grayscale levels (8-bit range), reducing the precision available. Our normalization process (which is applied to raw intensity data) may not be easy to implement qualitatively while reviewing a series of scans in a clinical setting. Therefore, it is hoped that instrument manufacturers could eventually add such measures to their output, enabling more sensitive detection of changes in reflectance.
In summary, we described a method to quantify the reflectance intensity of the RNFL from SD-OCT scans. For a given rate of RNFL thinning, a reduction in RNFL reflectance is associated with more rapidly deteriorating function. Further work will examine whether localized changes in RNFL reflectance correspond to localized functional deterioration. The causes of these reductions in reflectance intensity are not entirely clear, but they raise the intriguing possibility of dysfunctional yet surviving ganglion cell axons, which may be candidates for neuroprotection or rescue. Clinically, we would recommend examination of the images produced by OCT instruments, as they may reveal important changes that are not apparent from looking at RNFL thickness or other structural measures in isolation.