On OCTA, the neovascular lesion morphology corresponded to either “medusa” pattern, in which vessels are radiating in all directions from the center of the lesion (7/19 eyes, 36.8%), “seafan” pattern, in which vessels are radiating from one side of the lesion (3/19 eyes, 15.8%), or an indistinct pattern (9/19 eyes, 47.4%).
Figures 1 and
2 show examples of computing results in a treatment-naïve patient and in a treated patient, respectively. On ICGA, type 1 CNV mean area measurement in the intermediate phase was 2.70 mm
2 (± 2.43) for reader 1 and 2.71 mm
2 (± 2.45) for reader 2, while in late phase it was 3.04 mm
2 (± 2.38) and 2.92 mm
2 (± 2.55), respectively. On OCTA, type 1 CNV size on choriocapillaris automatic segmentation, measured with select area was 2.21 mm
2 (± 2.15) for reader 1 and was 2.03 mm
2 (± 1.92) for reader 2, while the vessel area was 1.17 mm
2 (± 1.10) and 1.11 mm
2 (± 0.99), respectively. In all eyes, the overlay of the 3 × 3 mm scanning area from OCTA to ICGA images revealed a lesion smaller on OCTA than both intermediate and late ICGA. There was complete agreement for the results obtained by OCTA and multimodal evaluation for all eyes.
Figure 3 shows an example of an independent size evaluation for two different readers. Interclass correlation (ICC) between readers 1 and 2 was evaluated. Interclass correlation was 0.96 (confidence interval [CI] 95% was 0.94–0.99) for select area and 0.97 (CI 95% 0.96–0.99) for vessel area. Interclass correlation between readers 1 and 2 for ICGA was 0.99 for intermediate phase (CI 95% 0.98–0.99) and 0.98 for late phase (CI 95% 0.96–0.99). The
Table shows the statistical analysis results and the lesion size comparison between OCTA and ICGA, using a Wilcoxon signed rank test: for both readers all compared variables were statistically significant (
P < 0.05). For each reader we compared the lesion size measured on OCTA as “vessel area” and “select area” with the lesion size measured on ICGA both in intermediate and late phases. The comparison between “vessel area” and the lesion measured on intermediate and late times of ICGA was statistically different (
P = 0.0001) for both readers. The comparison between “select area” and the lesion size on intermediate times of ICGA was statistically significant for both readers,
P = 0.02 for reader 1 and
P = 0.002 for reader 2. The comparison between “select area” and lesion size in late phase of ICGA have
P = 0.0003 and
P = 0.0005 for reader 1 and reader 2, respectively. We also analyzed the difference between the lesion size measured on intermediate and late phase of ICGA that resulted statistically significant only for one reader (
P = 0.08 and
P = 0.15, respectively).