Advertisement

Reliability of foveal avascular zone metrics automatically measured by Cirrus optical coherence tomography angiography in healthy subjects

  • Aidi Lin
  • Danqi Fang
  • Cuilian Li
  • Carol Y. Cheung
  • Haoyu ChenEmail author
Original Paper
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the reliability of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) metrics automatically measured using Cirrus optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) embedded algorithm compared to human manual measurement.

Methods

Thirty-five eyes of 35 healthy subjects were enrolled and scanned four times continuously on Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT 5000. The FAZ metrics (area, circularity and perimeter) of the superficial capillary plexus were measured automatically using the embedded tool and manually measured by the two independent observers using ImageJ. The repeatability of the four scans within all methods of measurements was calculated. The agreement of the manual vs automated measurement was also analyzed.

Results

The repeatability of the automated algorithm was only poor to moderate (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] for the area, perimeter and circularity were 0.600, 0.405 and 0.221, respectively) while the repeatability of the manually measured FAZ area and perimeter was good [([ICCs] ranged from 0.845 to 0.877) except the circularity (ICC = 0.538 to 0.608)]. The ranges of 95% limits of agreement between the manual measurements by the two observers were only 20% to 31% of those of automated–manual agreement. The Cirrus inbuilt algorithm obviously outlined the border of FAZ wrongly in 22.9% cases.

Conclusion

Caution should be taken when using the automated measurement results of FAZ metrics in Cirrus OCTA, because of the low repeatability and poor agreement compared with the manual measurement.

Keywords

Optical coherence tomography angiography Foveal avascular zone Reliability Metrics Automated algorithm Healthy subjects 

Notes

Author contributions

HC contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by AL, DF and CL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AL. HC and CYC revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study is supported by the Grant for Key Disciplinary Project of Clinical Medicine under the Guangdong High-level University Development Program (002-18119101).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Institutional Review Board of Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhao Q, Yang WL, Wang XN, Wang RK, You QS, Chu ZD, Xin C, Zhang MY, Li DJ, Wang ZY, Chen W, Li YF, Cui R, Shen L, Wei WB (2018) Repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative assessment of the retinal microvasculature using optical coherence tomography angiography based on optical microangiography. Biomed Env Sci BES 31(6):407–412.  https://doi.org/10.3967/bes2018.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borrelli E, Sarraf D, Freund KB, Sadda SR (2018) OCT angiography and evaluation of the choroid and choroidal vascular disorders. Prog Retinal Eye Res 67:30–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fingler J, Zawadzki RJ, Werner JS, Schwartz D, Fraser SE (2009) Volumetric microvascular imaging of human retina using optical coherence tomography with a novel motion contrast technique. Opt Express 17(24):22190–22200.  https://doi.org/10.1364/oe.17.022190 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iafe NA, Phasukkijwatana N, Chen X, Sarraf D (2016) Retinal capillary density and foveal avascular zone area are age-dependent: quantitative analysis using optical coherence tomography angiography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57(13):5780–5787.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-20045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spaide RF, Fujimoto JG, Waheed NK, Sadda SR, Staurenghi G (2018) Optical coherence tomography angiography. Progress Retinal Eye Res 64:1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jia Y, Bailey ST, Hwang TS, McClintic SM, Gao SS, Pennesi ME, Flaxel CJ, Lauer AK, Wilson DJ, Hornegger J, Fujimoto JG, Huang D (2015) Quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography of vascular abnormalities in the living human eye. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(18):E2395–2402.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500185112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hwang TS, Jia Y, Gao SS, Bailey ST, Lauer AK, Flaxel CJ, Wilson DJ, Huang D (2015) Optical coherence tomography angiography features of diabetic retinopathy. Retina 35(11):2371–2376.  https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000000716 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hwang TS, Hagag AM, Wang J, Zhang M, Smith A, Wilson DJ, Huang D, Jia Y (2018) Automated quantification of nonperfusion areas in 3 vascular plexuses with optical coherence tomography angiography in eyes of patients with diabetes. JAMA Ophthalmol 136(8):929–936.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.2257 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Triolo G, Rabiolo A, Shemonski ND, Fard A, Di Matteo F, Sacconi R, Bettin P, Magazzeni S, Querques G, Vazquez LE, Barboni P, Bandello F (2017) Optical coherence tomography angiography macular and peripapillary vessel perfusion density in healthy subjects, glaucoma suspects, and glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 58(13):5713–5722.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22865 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shahlaee A, Pefkianaki M, Hsu J, Ho AC (2016) Measurement of foveal avascular zone dimensions and its reliability in healthy eyes using optical coherence tomography angiography. Am J Ophthalmol 161:50–55.e51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.09.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumagai K, Furukawa M, Suetsugu T, Ogino N (2018) Foveal avascular zone area after internal limiting membrane peeling for epiretinal membrane and macular hole compared with that of fellow eyes and healthy controls. Retina 38(9):1786–1794.  https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000001778 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takase N, Nozaki M, Kato A, Ozeki H, Yoshida M, Ogura Y (2015) Enlargement of foveal avascular zone in diabetic eyes evaluated by en face optical coherence tomography angiography. Retina 35(11):2377–2383.  https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000000849 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dong J, Jia YD, Wu Q, Zhang S, Jia Y, Huang D, Wang X (2017) Interchangeability and reliability of macular perfusion parameter measurements using optical coherence tomography angiography. Br J Ophthalmol 101(11):1542–1549.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309441 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lupidi M, Coscas F, Cagini C, Fiore T, Spaccini E, Fruttini D, Coscas G (2016) Automated quantitative analysis of retinal microvasculature in normal eyes on optical coherence tomography angiography. Am J Ophthalmol 169:9–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.06.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Linderman R, Salmon AE, Strampe M, Russillo M, Khan J, Carroll J (2017) Assessing the accuracy of foveal avascular zone measurements using optical coherence tomography angiography: segmentation and scaling. Transl Vis Sci Technol 6(3):16.  https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.6.3.16 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    La Spina C, Carnevali A, Marchese A, Querques G, Bandello F (2017) Reproducibility and reliability of optical coherence tomography angiography for foveal avascular zone evaluation and measurement in different settings. Retina 37(9):1636–1641.  https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000001426 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bland JM (2010) How can I decide the sample size for a repeatability study? http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mb55/meas/sizerep.htm. Accessed 17 May 2010
  18. 18.
    Liao JJ (2010) Sample size calculation for an agreement study. Pharm Stat 9(2):125–132.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.382 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fang D, Tang FY, Huang H, Cheung CY, Chen H (2019) Repeatability, interocular correlation and agreement of quantitative swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography macular metrics in healthy subjects. Br J Ophthalmol 103(3):415–420.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-311874 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Domalpally A, Danis RP, White J, Narkar A, Clemons T, Ferris F, Chew E (2013) Circularity index as a risk factor for progression of geographic atrophy. Ophthalmology 120(12):2666–2671.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bland JM (2011) What is the standard error of the within-subject standard deviation, sw? http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mb55/meas/seofsw.htm. Accessed 4 Aug 2011
  22. 22.
    Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anegondi N, Kshirsagar A, Mochi TB, Sinha Roy A (2018) Quantitative comparison of retinal vascular features in optical coherence tomography angiography images from three different devices. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 49(7):488–496.  https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20180628-04 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shiihara H, Sakamoto T, Yamashita T (2017) Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments. Sci Rep 7(1):9853.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09255-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dave PA, Dansingani KK, Jabeen A, Jabeen A, Hasnat Ali M, Vupparaboina KK, Peguda HK, Pappurru RR, Agrawal R, Chhablani J (2018) Comparative evaluation of foveal avascular zone on two optical coherence tomography angiography devices. Optom Vis Sci Off Publ Am Acad Optom 95(7):602–607.  https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0000000000001238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mihailovic N, Brand C, Lahme L, Schubert F, Bormann E, Eter N, Alnawaiseh M (2018) Repeatability, reproducibility and agreement of foveal avascular zone measurements using three different optical coherence tomography angiography devices. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0206045.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206045 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pilotto E, Frizziero L, Crepaldi A, Della Dora E, Deganello D, Longhin E, Convento E, Parrozzani R, Midena E (2018) Repeatability and reproducibility of foveal avascular zone area measurement on normal eyes by different optical coherence tomography angiography instruments. Ophthalm Res 59(4):206–211.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000485463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yanik Odabas O, Demirel S, Ozmert E, Batioglu F (2018) Repeatability of automated vessel density and superficial and deep foveal avascular zone area measurements using optical coherence tomography angiography: diurnal findings. Retina 38(6):1238–1245.  https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000001671 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Shantou International Eye CenterShantou University and the Chinese University of Hong KongShantouChina
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual SciencesThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations