Cargando…

Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view

PURPOSE: To evaluate sensitivity and specificity of swept source-optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) en face images versus cross-sectional OCTA versus a combination of both for the detection of macular neovascularization (MNV). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Consecuti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siggel, Robert, Spital, Christel, Lentzsch, Anna, Liakopoulos, Sandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9873677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34992250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01892-5
_version_ 1784877649246552064
author Siggel, Robert
Spital, Christel
Lentzsch, Anna
Liakopoulos, Sandra
author_facet Siggel, Robert
Spital, Christel
Lentzsch, Anna
Liakopoulos, Sandra
author_sort Siggel, Robert
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate sensitivity and specificity of swept source-optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) en face images versus cross-sectional OCTA versus a combination of both for the detection of macular neovascularization (MNV). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients with various chorioretinal diseases and subretinal hyperreflective material (SHRM) and/or pigment epithelial detachment (PED) on OCT possibly corresponding to MNV in at least one eye. METHODS: 102 eyes of 63 patients with fluorescein angiography (FA), OCT and SS-OCTA performed on the same day were included. FA images, the outer retina to choriocapillaris (ORCC) OCTA en face slab, a manually modified en face slab (‘custom slab’), cross-sectional OCTA and a combination of OCTA en face and cross-section were evaluated for presence of MNV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity for MNV detection, as well as the concordance was calculated using FA as the reference. RESULTS: OCTA en face imaging alone yielded a sensitivity of 46.3% (automated)/78.1% (custom) and specificity of 93.4% (automated)/88.5% (custom) for MNV detection. Cross-sectional OCTA (combination with en face) resulted in a sensitivity of 85.4% (82.9%) and specificity of 82.0% (85.3%). Concordance to FA was moderate for automated en face OCTA (κ = 0.43), and substantial for custom en face OCTA (κ = 0.67), cross-sectional OCTA (κ = 0.66) and the combination (κ = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Segmentation errors result in decreased sensitivity for MNV detection on automatically generated OCTA en face images. Cross-sectional OCTA allows detection of MNV without manual modification of segmentation lines and should be used for evaluation of MNV on OCTA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9873677
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98736772023-01-26 Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view Siggel, Robert Spital, Christel Lentzsch, Anna Liakopoulos, Sandra Eye (Lond) Article PURPOSE: To evaluate sensitivity and specificity of swept source-optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) en face images versus cross-sectional OCTA versus a combination of both for the detection of macular neovascularization (MNV). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients with various chorioretinal diseases and subretinal hyperreflective material (SHRM) and/or pigment epithelial detachment (PED) on OCT possibly corresponding to MNV in at least one eye. METHODS: 102 eyes of 63 patients with fluorescein angiography (FA), OCT and SS-OCTA performed on the same day were included. FA images, the outer retina to choriocapillaris (ORCC) OCTA en face slab, a manually modified en face slab (‘custom slab’), cross-sectional OCTA and a combination of OCTA en face and cross-section were evaluated for presence of MNV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity for MNV detection, as well as the concordance was calculated using FA as the reference. RESULTS: OCTA en face imaging alone yielded a sensitivity of 46.3% (automated)/78.1% (custom) and specificity of 93.4% (automated)/88.5% (custom) for MNV detection. Cross-sectional OCTA (combination with en face) resulted in a sensitivity of 85.4% (82.9%) and specificity of 82.0% (85.3%). Concordance to FA was moderate for automated en face OCTA (κ = 0.43), and substantial for custom en face OCTA (κ = 0.67), cross-sectional OCTA (κ = 0.66) and the combination (κ = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Segmentation errors result in decreased sensitivity for MNV detection on automatically generated OCTA en face images. Cross-sectional OCTA allows detection of MNV without manual modification of segmentation lines and should be used for evaluation of MNV on OCTA. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-01-06 2023-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9873677/ /pubmed/34992250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01892-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Siggel, Robert
Spital, Christel
Lentzsch, Anna
Liakopoulos, Sandra
Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view
title Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view
title_full Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view
title_fullStr Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view
title_full_unstemmed Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view
title_short Optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view
title_sort optical coherence tomography angiography for the detection of macular neovascularization—comparison of en face versus cross-sectional view
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9873677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34992250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01892-5
work_keys_str_mv AT siggelrobert opticalcoherencetomographyangiographyforthedetectionofmacularneovascularizationcomparisonofenfaceversuscrosssectionalview
AT spitalchristel opticalcoherencetomographyangiographyforthedetectionofmacularneovascularizationcomparisonofenfaceversuscrosssectionalview
AT lentzschanna opticalcoherencetomographyangiographyforthedetectionofmacularneovascularizationcomparisonofenfaceversuscrosssectionalview
AT liakopoulossandra opticalcoherencetomographyangiographyforthedetectionofmacularneovascularizationcomparisonofenfaceversuscrosssectionalview