Automated Detection of Clinically Significant Macular Edema by Grid Scanning Optical Coherence Tomography

Srinivas R. Sadda; Ou Tan; Alexander C. Walsh; Joel S. Schuman; Rohit Varma; David Huang

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.020

Automated Detection of Clinically Significant Macular Edema by Grid Scanning Optical Coherence Tomography

Srinivas R. Sadda, Ou Tan, Alexander C. Walsh, Joel S. Schuman, Rohit Varma, David Huang

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

44 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare the detection of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) by an optical coherence tomography (OCT) grid scanning protocol and biomicroscopic examination. Design: Retrospective case series. Participants: Outpatients at the Doheny Eye Institute. Methods: The clinical and imaging records of a consecutive series of 71 eyes of 40 patients referred for DME who underwent OCT using the both the Macular Grid 5 (MG5) scanning protocol (to allow a more evenly distributed sampling of points in the macula) and the standard Fast Macular Thickness Map (FMTM) pattern were reviewed. An automated algorithm was developed to generate a retinal thickness map using the MG5 data, which was then compared with a normative database to identify presumed areas of retinal edema. Clinically significant macular edema (CSME) was also identified by clinical examination and stereoscopic fundus photographs for comparison with the results of the OCT protocols. Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of scanning protocols. Results: Optical coherence tomograms were inspected visually, and automatically detected retinal boundaries were found to be correct in 69 of 71 MG5 scans and in 65 of 71 FMTM scans. Macular Grid 5 scanning was performed twice in each eye, and the repeatability (pooled standard deviation) of the total area of edema was 0.48 mm² (coefficient of variation, 6.8%). Sensitivity and specificity of the MG5 for detection of CSME relative to the clinical examination were 89% and 86%, respectively, with κ being 0.74. Macular Grid 5 and FMTM assessment of foveal CSME also showed good agreement, with κ being 0.68. Conclusions: The analysis algorithm for the OCT MG5 grid scan seems to be accurate and repeatable. Automated detection of CSME by the MG5 analysis correlated well with the clinical grading and standard OCT analysis (FMTM). Macular Grid 5 provides more information regarding the perifoveal macula than FMTM and may be of value to clinicians in planning treatment and in future studies of macular edema.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1187.e1-1187.e12
Journal	Ophthalmology
Volume	113
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.020
State	Published - Jul 2006
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Ophthalmology

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.020

Cite this

@article{c351aa28300145a5bf9f83c2a439cfd0,

title = "Automated Detection of Clinically Significant Macular Edema by Grid Scanning Optical Coherence Tomography",

abstract = "Objective: To compare the detection of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) by an optical coherence tomography (OCT) grid scanning protocol and biomicroscopic examination. Design: Retrospective case series. Participants: Outpatients at the Doheny Eye Institute. Methods: The clinical and imaging records of a consecutive series of 71 eyes of 40 patients referred for DME who underwent OCT using the both the Macular Grid 5 (MG5) scanning protocol (to allow a more evenly distributed sampling of points in the macula) and the standard Fast Macular Thickness Map (FMTM) pattern were reviewed. An automated algorithm was developed to generate a retinal thickness map using the MG5 data, which was then compared with a normative database to identify presumed areas of retinal edema. Clinically significant macular edema (CSME) was also identified by clinical examination and stereoscopic fundus photographs for comparison with the results of the OCT protocols. Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of scanning protocols. Results: Optical coherence tomograms were inspected visually, and automatically detected retinal boundaries were found to be correct in 69 of 71 MG5 scans and in 65 of 71 FMTM scans. Macular Grid 5 scanning was performed twice in each eye, and the repeatability (pooled standard deviation) of the total area of edema was 0.48 mm2 (coefficient of variation, 6.8%). Sensitivity and specificity of the MG5 for detection of CSME relative to the clinical examination were 89% and 86%, respectively, with κ being 0.74. Macular Grid 5 and FMTM assessment of foveal CSME also showed good agreement, with κ being 0.68. Conclusions: The analysis algorithm for the OCT MG5 grid scan seems to be accurate and repeatable. Automated detection of CSME by the MG5 analysis correlated well with the clinical grading and standard OCT analysis (FMTM). Macular Grid 5 provides more information regarding the perifoveal macula than FMTM and may be of value to clinicians in planning treatment and in future studies of macular edema.",

author = "Sadda, {Srinivas R.} and Ou Tan and Walsh, {Alexander C.} and Schuman, {Joel S.} and Rohit Varma and David Huang",

note = "Funding Information: Supported in part by National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (grant nos.: R01 EY013516, R01-EY013178-5, P30-EY008098); Eye and Ear Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; National Eye Institute and National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (grant nos.: EY 11753, EY 03040); and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York. Dr Varma ia a Research to Prevent Blindness Sybil B. Harrington Scholar. ",

year = "2006",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.020",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "113",

pages = "1187.e1--1187.e12",

journal = "Ophthalmology",

issn = "0161-6420",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Automated Detection of Clinically Significant Macular Edema by Grid Scanning Optical Coherence Tomography

AU - Sadda, Srinivas R.

AU - Tan, Ou

AU - Walsh, Alexander C.

AU - Schuman, Joel S.

AU - Varma, Rohit

AU - Huang, David

N1 - Funding Information: Supported in part by National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (grant nos.: R01 EY013516, R01-EY013178-5, P30-EY008098); Eye and Ear Foundation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; National Eye Institute and National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (grant nos.: EY 11753, EY 03040); and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York. Dr Varma ia a Research to Prevent Blindness Sybil B. Harrington Scholar.

PY - 2006/7

Y1 - 2006/7

N2 - Objective: To compare the detection of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) by an optical coherence tomography (OCT) grid scanning protocol and biomicroscopic examination. Design: Retrospective case series. Participants: Outpatients at the Doheny Eye Institute. Methods: The clinical and imaging records of a consecutive series of 71 eyes of 40 patients referred for DME who underwent OCT using the both the Macular Grid 5 (MG5) scanning protocol (to allow a more evenly distributed sampling of points in the macula) and the standard Fast Macular Thickness Map (FMTM) pattern were reviewed. An automated algorithm was developed to generate a retinal thickness map using the MG5 data, which was then compared with a normative database to identify presumed areas of retinal edema. Clinically significant macular edema (CSME) was also identified by clinical examination and stereoscopic fundus photographs for comparison with the results of the OCT protocols. Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of scanning protocols. Results: Optical coherence tomograms were inspected visually, and automatically detected retinal boundaries were found to be correct in 69 of 71 MG5 scans and in 65 of 71 FMTM scans. Macular Grid 5 scanning was performed twice in each eye, and the repeatability (pooled standard deviation) of the total area of edema was 0.48 mm2 (coefficient of variation, 6.8%). Sensitivity and specificity of the MG5 for detection of CSME relative to the clinical examination were 89% and 86%, respectively, with κ being 0.74. Macular Grid 5 and FMTM assessment of foveal CSME also showed good agreement, with κ being 0.68. Conclusions: The analysis algorithm for the OCT MG5 grid scan seems to be accurate and repeatable. Automated detection of CSME by the MG5 analysis correlated well with the clinical grading and standard OCT analysis (FMTM). Macular Grid 5 provides more information regarding the perifoveal macula than FMTM and may be of value to clinicians in planning treatment and in future studies of macular edema.

AB - Objective: To compare the detection of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) by an optical coherence tomography (OCT) grid scanning protocol and biomicroscopic examination. Design: Retrospective case series. Participants: Outpatients at the Doheny Eye Institute. Methods: The clinical and imaging records of a consecutive series of 71 eyes of 40 patients referred for DME who underwent OCT using the both the Macular Grid 5 (MG5) scanning protocol (to allow a more evenly distributed sampling of points in the macula) and the standard Fast Macular Thickness Map (FMTM) pattern were reviewed. An automated algorithm was developed to generate a retinal thickness map using the MG5 data, which was then compared with a normative database to identify presumed areas of retinal edema. Clinically significant macular edema (CSME) was also identified by clinical examination and stereoscopic fundus photographs for comparison with the results of the OCT protocols. Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of scanning protocols. Results: Optical coherence tomograms were inspected visually, and automatically detected retinal boundaries were found to be correct in 69 of 71 MG5 scans and in 65 of 71 FMTM scans. Macular Grid 5 scanning was performed twice in each eye, and the repeatability (pooled standard deviation) of the total area of edema was 0.48 mm2 (coefficient of variation, 6.8%). Sensitivity and specificity of the MG5 for detection of CSME relative to the clinical examination were 89% and 86%, respectively, with κ being 0.74. Macular Grid 5 and FMTM assessment of foveal CSME also showed good agreement, with κ being 0.68. Conclusions: The analysis algorithm for the OCT MG5 grid scan seems to be accurate and repeatable. Automated detection of CSME by the MG5 analysis correlated well with the clinical grading and standard OCT analysis (FMTM). Macular Grid 5 provides more information regarding the perifoveal macula than FMTM and may be of value to clinicians in planning treatment and in future studies of macular edema.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745645624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745645624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.020

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 16647123

AN - SCOPUS:33745645624

SN - 0161-6420

VL - 113

SP - 1187.e1-1187.e12

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

IS - 7

ER -

Automated Detection of Clinically Significant Macular Edema by Grid Scanning Optical Coherence Tomography

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this