July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
A Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Using Optical Coherence Tomography
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Eleanor Kim
    Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Ashley Sun
    Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Zhichao Wu
    Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Carlos Gustavo de Moraes
    Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Robert Ritch
    Einhorn Clinical Research Center, NYEE Infirimary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States
  • Donald C Hood
    Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Eleanor Kim, None; Ashley Sun, None; Zhichao Wu, None; Carlos Moraes, None; Robert Ritch, None; Donald Hood, Heidelberg Engineering, Inc. (F), Heidelberg Engineering, Inc. (C), Topcon, Inc. (F), Topcon, Inc. (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  NH Grant EY02115
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 2089. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Eleanor Kim, Ashley Sun, Zhichao Wu, Carlos Gustavo de Moraes, Robert Ritch, Donald C Hood; A Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Glaucoma Progression Using Optical Coherence Tomography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):2089.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare a qualitative to a common quantitative assessment of glaucoma progression using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT)

Methods : There were 2 sets of eyes: a “variability group” (VG) with scans 1.1±0.3 months apart (95 eyes from 94 patients, age=52.3±19.4 yrs) from the MAPS [1] database; and a “longitudinal group” (LG) with scans 17.3±5.3 months apart (79 eyes from 47 patients, age=61.4±13.4 yrs). The VG consisted of 54 glaucomatous or glaucoma suspect eyes and 41 healthy eyes, while all LG eyes were glaucomatous or glaucoma suspects, as determined by glaucoma specialists. All eyes had 3.5 and 4.7mm circle scans using Heidelberg Spectralis SD-OCT ART (Automatic Real-time Tracking), which allows for alignment of optic nerve head structures between exam dates. For the quantitative method, we calculated the difference between the global cpRNFL thickness on the 1st and 2nd scans. For the qualitative method, an experienced OCT reader rated the probability of progression on a scale of 0 to 100. For either method, LG eyes showing change exceeding the 5% lower limit of normal test-retest variability for both circles were called “progression.”

Results : Similar sensitivities and specificities were observed for both methods, 20.3% (16/79) and 98.9% (94/95) for qualitative and 24.1% (19/79) and 97.9% (93/95) for quantitative (p=0.303). However, both methods only agreed on “progression” for 10 eyes. Examining circle scans for the 6 eyes identified as “progression” only by the qualitative method suggested that in 5 of these eyes the quantitative method missed clear local damage (e.g., Fig. 1). A similar examination of the 9 eyes identified only by the quantitative method suggested that 6 of these eyes were falsely classified as “progression” due to segmentation errors (e.g., Fig. 2).

Conclusions : The quantitative (global cpRNFL thickness) and qualitative methods (visual inspection) agreed in only 40% (10) of all (25) eyes identified as “progression” by at least one method. A post-hoc examination of scans indicated that the quantitative method was prone to errors due to segmentation problems and an inability to identify local progression, suggesting that a qualitative method shows promise for improving the accuracy of detecting progression.

1. De Moraes et al., ARVO, 2017.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

 

 

×
×

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.

×