Evaluation of the different thresholding strategies for quantifying choriocapillaris using optical coherence tomography angiography

Background

In this paper, we evaluate the different thresholding strategies that have been used for the quantification of the choriocapillaris (CC) and explore their repeatability and the interchangeability of the measurements resulting from its application.

Methods

Observational study. Eighteen eyes from nine healthy volunteers aged >18 years were imaged four consecutive times with a SD-OCTA system (Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) using a 10°×10° high-resolution protocol centered on the fovea. Projection artifacts were removed, and the CC was bracketed between 10 and 30 µm below Bruch's membrane. For the quantification of CC, we used four flow deficits (FD) parameters: FD number, mean FD size, total FD area and FD density. We performed a systematic review of literature to collect the thresholding methods that have been used for the quantification of CC. The CC quantification parameters were then evaluated after applying each of the thresholding strategies. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation analysis were used to compare the repeatability and interchangeability among the different thresholding strategies for quantifying the CC.

Results

A total of 72 optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) examinations were considered. The systematic review allowed us to conclude that three local thresholding strategies (Phansalkar, mean and Niblack) and three global thresholding strategies (mean, default, Otsu) have been used for CC quantification. These strategies were evaluated in our observational study. We found a high agreement within the same method in the quantification of FD number, mean FD size, total FD area and FD density but a poor agreement with different strategies. Local strategies achieved a significantly superior ICC than global ones in CC quantification.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the interchangeability of the CC quantification using different thresholding strategies is low, and direct comparisons should not be performed. Local thresholding strategies are significantly superior to global ones for quantifying CC and should be preferred. There is an unmet need for a uniform strategy to quantify CC in future studies.

Quantifying choriocapillaris flow deficits using global and localized thresholding methods: a correlation study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the correlation and agreement of two previously published choriocapillaris (CC) quantification methods using a normal database with swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA).

METHODS

Normal adult subjects from all age groups imaged by SS-OCTA were used in this study. Each subject was imaged with 3 mm × 3 mm and 6 mm × 6 mm scan patterns centered on fovea, upon which en face CC images were generated by segmenting volumetric OCTA data. After signal compensation and removal of projection artifacts and noise, CC images were analyzed to identify flow deficits (FD) using two published methods. The first method utilized standard deviation from a young normal database (SD method) as the global thresholding while the second method utilized fuzzy C-means algorithm (FCM method) with local thresholding. Both methods segmented FDs from CC images and quantified FD density (FDD) and mean FD size (MFDS). In each 3 mm × 3 mm scan, three regions were quantified: a 1 mm circle (C1), a 1.5 mm rim (R1.5) and a 2.5 mm circle (C2.5). In each 6 mm × 6 mm scan, five regions were quantified: C1, R1.5, C2.5, a 2.5 mm rim (R2.5) and a 5 mm circle (C5). Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman plot analyses were conducted to compare the two methods.

RESULTS

Data obtained from 164 normal subjects (age: 56±19, 59% females) were used in this study. Strong correlations were observed between the two methods in all comparisons (r: 0.78-0.94, all P<0.0001). Overall MFDS provided higher or comparable correlation coefficients (r) compared to FDD. We have also observed stronger correlations in the central macula compared to parafoveal and perifoveal regions for both FDD and MFDS. In regions of C1, R1.5 and C2.5, 6 mm × 6 mm scans resulted in better agreement (smaller mean bias, similar or tighter limit of agreement) between the two methods for both FDD and MFDS compared to 3 mm × 3 mm scans.

CONCLUSIONS

There are strong correlations and satisfactory agreement between SD method and FCM method. SD method requires the reference to a normal database for CC quantification while FCM does not. Both methods could be used for the analysis of CC FDs in clinical settings depending on specific study designs such as the availability of a normal database.