Assessment of the optic disc morphology using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy

Comparison of imaging parameters between OCT, GDx and HRT in the Northern Finland birth cohort eye study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to assess and compare the optic nerve head (ONH) and retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) parameters and image quality parameters obtained by Cirrus HD-OCT, GDxECC and HRT3 in a population-based screening study.

METHODS

This analysis examined 2566 subjects taking part in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort Eye study. Images with spectral domain OCT (Cirrus HD-OCT 4000), scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (HRT3) and scanning laser polarimetry (GDxECC) were obtained from each subject. The correlation of average and regional parameters of RNFL and ONH between devices was evaluated.

RESULTS

The RNFL thickness was 90.9 µm when measured with OCT, 24.6 µm with HRT and 48.1 µm with GDx. There was a high correlation between the disc and cup measurements with the HRT and OCT and the RNFL thickness of the OCT and GDx (r > 0.5). A statistically significant correlation was found between RNFL measurements of the HRT and OCT in the superior, temporal and inferior quadrants. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) signal strength correlated with the image quality parameters of the HRT and GDx. The percentage of good quality images was the lowest with the GDx.

CONCLUSION

The RNFL thickness in Northern Finland birth cohort was at a lower level compared to other studies. The study confirms the difference in measuring ONH parameters between the imaging devices. However, significant correlations between devices were found in the cup volume and cup disc area ratio parameters of the OCT and HRT. The correlations between image quality parameters and glaucoma detection parameters were relatively low.

[Applications of optical coherence tomography in glaucoma]

The article reviews literature on optical coherence tomography (OCT) - one of the modern methods of early diagnostics of primary open-angle glaucoma, which has won great popularity among Russian and foreign ophthalmologists. In addition to a summary of the history of the emergence and development of this method, the main purpose was to compare the investigation results and the analysis of the optic disc as the main target subjected to pathological alterations in glaucoma development. Most of the studies comparing the diagnostic capabilities of OCT and Heidelberg retinal tomography (HRT) in the early detection of glaucoma show equivalence of these methods. On the other hand, OCT allows performing subtler structural analysis of the retina, whereas HRT provides more accurate analysis of internal parameters of the optic disc.

Optical coherence tomography for glaucoma diagnosis: An evidence based meta-analysis

Purpose

Early detection, monitoring and understanding of changes in the retina are central to the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, and vital to reduce visual loss from this progressive condition. The main objective of this investigation was to compare glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of commercially available optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices (Zeiss Stratus, Zeiss Cirrus, Heidelberg Spectralis and Optovue RTVue, and Topcon 3D-OCT).

Patients

16,104 glaucomatous and 11,543 normal eyes reported in 150 studies.

Methods

Between Jan. 2017 and Feb 2017, MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, CINAHL^®, Cochrane Library^®, Web of Science^®, and BIOSIS^® were searched for studies assessing glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of the aforementioned OCT devices. Meta-analysis was performed pooling area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) estimates for all devices, stratified by OCT type (RNFL, macula), and area imaged.

Results

150 studies with 16,104 glaucomatous and 11,543 normal control eyes were included. Key findings: AUROC of glaucoma diagnosis for RNFL average for all glaucoma patients was 0.897 (0.887–0.906, n = 16,782 patient eyes), for macula ganglion cell complex (GCC) was 0.885 (0.869–0.901, n = 4841 eyes), for macula ganglion cell inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) was 0.858 (0.835–0.880, n = 4211 eyes), and for total macular thickness was 0.795 (0.754–0.834, n = 1063 eyes).

Conclusion

The classification capability was similar across all 5 OCT devices. More diagnostically favorable AUROCs were demonstrated in patients with increased glaucoma severity. Diagnostic accuracy of RNFL and segmented macular regions (GCIPL, GCC) scans were similar and higher than total macular thickness. This study provides a synthesis of contemporary evidence with features of robust inclusion criteria and large sample size. These findings may provide guidance to clinicians when navigating this rapidly evolving diagnostic area characterized by numerous options.

Optic nerve head parameters of high-definition optical coherence tomography and Heidelberg retina tomogram in perimetric and preperimetric glaucoma

Background:

Heidelberg retina tomogram (HRT) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) are two widely used imaging modalities to evaluate the optic nerve head (ONH) in glaucoma.

Purpose:

To compare the ONH parameters of HRT3 and high-definition OCT (HD-OCT) and evaluate their diagnostic abilities in perimetric and preperimetric glaucoma.

Design:

Cross-sectional analysis.

Methods:

35 control eyes (24 subjects), 21 preperimetric glaucoma eyes (15 patients), and 64 perimetric glaucoma eyes (44 patients) from the Longitudinal Glaucoma Evaluation Study underwent HRT3 and HD-OCT examinations.

Statistical Analysis:

Agreement between the ONH parameters of HRT and HD-OCT were assessed using Bland-Altman plots. Diagnostic abilities of ONH parameters were evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), sensitivity at fixed specificity, and likelihood ratios (LR).

Results:

Optic disc area, vertical cup to disc ratio, and cup volume with HD-OCT were larger than with HRT, while the rim area was smaller with HD-OCT (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). AUCs of all HD-OCT ONH parameters (0.90-0.97 in perimetric and 0.62-0.71 in preperimetric glaucoma) were comparable (P > 0.10) to the corresponding HRT ONH parameters (0.81-0.95 in perimetric and 0.55-0.72 in preperimetric glaucoma). LRs associated with diagnostic categorization of ONH parameters of both HD-OCT and HRT were associated with larger effects on posttest probability of perimetric compared to preperimetric glaucoma.

Conclusions:

ONH measurements of HD-OCT and HRT3 cannot be used interchangeably. Though the diagnostic abilities of ONH parameters of HD-OCT and HRT in glaucoma were comparable, the same were significantly lower in preperimetric compared to perimetric glaucoma.

Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of glaucoma is traditionally based on the finding of optic nerve head (ONH) damage assessed subjectively by ophthalmoscopy or photography or by corresponding damage to the visual field assessed by automated perimetry, or both. Diagnostic assessments are usually required when ophthalmologists or primary eye care professionals find elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) or a suspect appearance of the ONH. Imaging tests such as confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (HRT), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and scanning laser polarimetry (SLP, as used by the GDx instrument), provide an objective measure of the structural changes of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and ONH parameters occurring in glaucoma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HRT, OCT and GDx for diagnosing manifest glaucoma by detecting ONH and RNFL damage.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched several databases for this review. The most recent searches were on 19 February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies that evaluated the accuracy of OCT, HRT or the GDx for diagnosing glaucoma. We excluded population-based screening studies, since we planned to consider studies on self-referred people or participants in whom a risk factor for glaucoma had already been identified in primary care, such as elevated IOP or a family history of glaucoma. We only considered recent commercial versions of the tests: spectral domain OCT, HRT III and GDx VCC or ECC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adopted standard Cochrane methods. We fitted a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) model using the METADAS macro in SAS software. After studies were selected, we decided to use 2 x 2 data at 0.95 specificity or closer in meta-analyses, since this was the most commonly-reported level.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 106 studies in this review, which analysed 16,260 eyes (8353 cases, 7907 controls) in total. Forty studies (5574 participants) assessed GDx, 18 studies (3550 participants) HRT, and 63 (9390 participants) OCT, with 12 of these studies comparing two or three tests. Regarding study quality, a case-control design in 103 studies raised concerns as it can overestimate accuracy and reduce the applicability of the results to daily practice. Twenty-four studies were sponsored by the manufacturer, and in 15 the potential conflict of interest was unclear.Comparisons made within each test were more reliable than those between tests, as they were mostly based on direct comparisons within each study.The Nerve Fibre Indicator yielded the highest accuracy (estimate, 95% confidence interval (CI)) among GDx parameters (sensitivity: 0.67, 0.55 to 0.77; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95). For HRT measures, the Vertical Cup/Disc (C/D) ratio (sensitivity: 0.72, 0.60 to 0.68; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95) was no different from other parameters. With OCT, the accuracy of average RNFL retinal thickness was similar to the inferior sector (0.72, 0.65 to 0.77; specificity: 0.93, 0.92 to 0.95) and, in different studies, to the vertical C/D ratio.Comparing the parameters with the highest diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for each device in a single HSROC model, the performance of GDx, HRT and OCT was remarkably similar. At a sensitivity of 0.70 and a high specificity close to 0.95 as in most of these studies, in 1000 people referred by primary eye care, of whom 200 have manifest glaucoma, such as in those who have already undergone some functional or anatomic testing by optometrists, the best measures of GDx, HRT and OCT would miss about 60 cases out of the 200 patients with glaucoma, and would incorrectly refer 50 out of 800 patients without glaucoma. If prevalence were 5%, e.g. such as in people referred only because of family history of glaucoma, the corresponding figures would be 15 patients missed out of 50 with manifest glaucoma, avoiding referral of about 890 out of 950 non-glaucomatous people.Heterogeneity investigations found that sensitivity estimate was higher for studies with more severe glaucoma, expressed as worse average mean deviation (MD): 0.79 (0.74 to 0.83) for MD < -6 db versus 0.64 (0.60 to 0.69) for MD ≥ -6 db, at a similar summary specificity (0.93, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.94 and, respectively, 0.94; 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95; P < 0.0001 for the difference in relative DOR).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of imaging tests for detecting manifest glaucoma was variable across studies, but overall similar for different devices. Accuracy may have been overestimated due to the case-control design, which is a serious limitation of the current evidence base.We recommend that further diagnostic accuracy studies are carried out on patients selected consecutively at a defined step of the clinical pathway, providing a description of risk factors leading to referral and bearing in mind the consequences of false positives and false negatives in the setting in which the diagnostic question is made. Future research should report accuracy for each threshold of these continuous measures, or publish raw data.