TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration
T2 - a MACUSTAR study report
AU - MACUSTAR Consortium
AU - Garzone, Davide
AU - Terheyden, Jan Henrik
AU - Morelle, Olivier
AU - Wintergerst, Maximilian W. M.
AU - Saßmannshausen, Marlene
AU - Schmitz-Valckenberg, Steffen
AU - Pfau, Maximilian
AU - Thiele, Sarah
AU - Poor, Stephen
AU - Leal, Sergio
AU - Holz, Frank G.
AU - Finger, Robert P.
AU - Agostini, H.
AU - Altay, L.
AU - Atia, R.
AU - Bandello, F.
AU - Basile, P. G.
AU - Behning, C.
AU - Belmouhand, M.
AU - Berger, M.
AU - Binns, A.
AU - Boon, C. J. F.
AU - Böttger, M.
AU - Bouchet, C.
AU - Brazier, J. E.
AU - Butt, T.
AU - Carapezzi, C.
AU - Carlton, J.
AU - Carneiro, A.
AU - Charil, A.
AU - Coimbra, R.
AU - Cozzi, M.
AU - Crabb, D. P.
AU - Cunha-Vaz, J.
AU - Dahlke, C.
AU - de Sisternes, L.
AU - Dunbar, H.
AU - Fletcher, E.
AU - Francisco, C.
AU - Gutfleisch, M.
AU - Hogg, R.
AU - Hoyng, C. B.
AU - Kilani, A.
AU - Krätzschmar, J.
AU - Kühlewein, L.
AU - Larsen, M.
AU - Lechanteur, Y. T. E.
AU - Luhmann, U. F. O.
AU - Lüning, A.
AU - Marques, I.
N1 - Funding Information: Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This project received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (Grant Agreement Number 116076). This joint undertaking received support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. The sponsors or funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of the MACUSTAR study. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12/1
Y1 - 2022/12/1
N2 - Drusen are hallmarks of early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) but their quantification remains a challenge. We compared automated drusen volume measurements between different OCT devices. We included 380 eyes from 200 individuals with bilateral intermediate (iAMD, n = 126), early (eAMD, n = 25) or no AMD (n = 49) from the MACUSTAR study. We assessed OCT scans from Cirrus (200 × 200 macular cube, 6 × 6 mm; Zeiss Meditec, CA) and Spectralis (20° × 20°, 25 B-scans; 30° × 25°, 241 B-scans; Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) devices. Sensitivity and specificity for drusen detection and differences between modalities were assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean difference in a 5 mm diameter fovea-centered circle. Specificity was > 90% in the three modalities. In eAMD, we observed highest sensitivity in the denser Spectralis scan (68.1). The two different Spectralis modalities showed a significantly higher agreement in quantifying drusen volume in iAMD (ICC 0.993 [0.991–0.994]) than the dense Spectralis with Cirrus scan (ICC 0.807 [0.757–0.847]). Formulae for drusen volume conversion in iAMD between the two devices are provided. Automated drusen volume measures are not interchangeable between devices and softwares and need to be interpreted with the used imaging devices and software in mind. Accounting for systematic difference between methods increases comparability and conversion formulae are provided. Less dense scans did not affect drusen volume measurements in iAMD but decreased sensitivity for medium drusen in eAMD. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03349801. Registered on 22 November 2017.
AB - Drusen are hallmarks of early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) but their quantification remains a challenge. We compared automated drusen volume measurements between different OCT devices. We included 380 eyes from 200 individuals with bilateral intermediate (iAMD, n = 126), early (eAMD, n = 25) or no AMD (n = 49) from the MACUSTAR study. We assessed OCT scans from Cirrus (200 × 200 macular cube, 6 × 6 mm; Zeiss Meditec, CA) and Spectralis (20° × 20°, 25 B-scans; 30° × 25°, 241 B-scans; Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) devices. Sensitivity and specificity for drusen detection and differences between modalities were assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean difference in a 5 mm diameter fovea-centered circle. Specificity was > 90% in the three modalities. In eAMD, we observed highest sensitivity in the denser Spectralis scan (68.1). The two different Spectralis modalities showed a significantly higher agreement in quantifying drusen volume in iAMD (ICC 0.993 [0.991–0.994]) than the dense Spectralis with Cirrus scan (ICC 0.807 [0.757–0.847]). Formulae for drusen volume conversion in iAMD between the two devices are provided. Automated drusen volume measures are not interchangeable between devices and softwares and need to be interpreted with the used imaging devices and software in mind. Accounting for systematic difference between methods increases comparability and conversion formulae are provided. Less dense scans did not affect drusen volume measurements in iAMD but decreased sensitivity for medium drusen in eAMD. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03349801. Registered on 22 November 2017.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85144249416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w
DO - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 36535990
SN - 2045-2322
VL - 12
JO - Scientific reports
JF - Scientific reports
IS - 1
M1 - 21911
ER -