Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Drusen morphometrics on optical coherence tomography in eyes with age-related macular degeneration and normal aging

  • Retinal Disorders
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare drusen size metrics (apical height and basal width) on optical coherence tomography (OCT) B-scans with their size assessed on color photos in eyes with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and normal aging.

Methods

A total of 508 drusen were evaluated in this analysis. Flash color fundus photos (CFP), infrared reflectance (IR) images, and OCT B-scans obtained at the same visit were evaluated. Individual drusen were identified on CFPs and the diameters of the drusen were measured in planimetric grading software. CFPs were manually registered to the IR image with their corresponding OCT volume. After confirming correspondence between the CFP and OCT, the apical height and basal width of the same drusen were measured on OCT B-scans.

Results

Drusen were divided into small, medium, large, and very large categories based on their diameter on the CFP images (< 63, 63 to 124, 125 to 249, and \(\ge\) 250 μm, respectively). The OCT apical height of small drusen on CFP ranged from 20 to 31 μm, while medium drusen ranged from 31 to 46 μm, large drusen ranged from 45 μm to 111 µm, and very large drusen ranged from 55 μm to 208 μm. The OCT basal width measured < 99 μm in small drusen, from 99 to 143 μm in medium drusen, from 141 to 407 µm in large drusen, and > 209 µm in very large drusen.

Conclusion

Drusen of different size categories on color photographs may also be separated according to their apical height and basal width on OCT. The apical height and basal width ranges defined in this analysis may be of value in the design of an OCT-based grading scale for AMD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used to support these findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Friedman DS, O’Colmain BJ, Muñoz B et al (2004) Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 122:564–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Congdon NG et al (2003) Potential public health impact of Age-Related Eye Disease Study results: AREDS report no. 11. Arch Ophthalmol 121:1621–1624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group (2001) The Age-Related Eye Disease Study system for classifying age-related macular degeneration from stereoscopic color fundus photographs: the Age-Related Eye Disease Study Report Number 6. Am J Ophthalmol 132:668–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meyer CH, Saxena S, Sadda SR (2017) Spectral domain optical coherence tomography in macular diseases. Springer India

  5. Gheorghe A, Mahdi L, Musat O (2015) Age-related macular degeneration. Rom J Ophthalmol 59:74–77

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferris FL 3rd, Wilkinson CP, Bird A et al (2013) Clinical classification of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 120:844–851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang X, Sivaprasad S (2021) Drusen and pachydrusen: the definition, pathogenesis, and clinical significance. Eye 35:121–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Klein R, Klein BEK, Tomany SC et al (2002) Ten-year incidence and progression of age-related maculopathy: The Beaver Dam eye study. Ophthalmology 109:1767–1779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis MD, Gangnon RE, Lee L-Y et al (2005) The Age-Related Eye Disease Study severity scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS Report No. 17. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1484–1498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang JJ, Foran S, Smith W, Mitchell P (2003) Risk of age-related macular degeneration in eyes with macular drusen or hyperpigmentation: the Blue Mountains Eye Study cohort. Arch Ophthalmol 121:658–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferris FL, Davis MD, Clemons TE et al (2005) A simplified severity scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS Report No. 18. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1570–1574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elsevier [No title]. https://www.elsevier.com/books/handbook-of-retinal-oct-optical-coherence-tomography/978-0-323-75772-0. Accessed 13 Aug 2022

  13. Yehoshua Z, Wang F, Rosenfeld PJ et al (2011) Natural history of drusen morphology in age-related macular degeneration using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 118:2434–2441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nittala MG, Song YE, Sardell R et al (2019) Amish Eye Study: baseline spectral domain optical coherence tomography characteristics of age-related macular degeneration. Retina 39:1540–1550

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gabriele ML, Wollstein G, Ishikawa H et al (2010) Three dimensional optical coherence tomography imaging: advantages and advances. Prog Retin Eye Res 29:556–579

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Phadikar P, Saxena S, Ruia S et al (2017) The potential of spectral domain optical coherence tomography imaging based retinal biomarkers. Int J Retina Vitreous 3:1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Spaide RF, Curcio CA (2010) Drusen characterization with multimodal imaging. Retina 30:1441–1454

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Holz FG, Sadda SR, Staurenghi G et al (2017) Imaging protocols in clinical studies in advanced age-related macular degeneration: recommendations from Classification of Atrophy Consensus Meetings. Ophthalmology 124:464–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sadda SR, Guymer R, Holz FG et al (2018) Consensus definition for atrophy associated with age-related macular degeneration on OCT: Classification of Atrophy Report 3. Ophthalmology 125:537–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Farsiu S, Chiu SJ, O’Connell RV et al (2014) Quantitative classification of eyes with and without intermediate age-related macular degeneration using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 121:162–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yu JJ, Agrón E, Clemons TE et al (2019) Natural history of drusenoid pigment epithelial detachment associated with age-related macular degeneration: Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Report No. 17. Ophthalmology 126:261–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nittala MG, Ruiz-Garcia H, Sadda SR (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of automated drusen segmentation in eyes with non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:8319–8324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Freeman SR, Kozak I, Cheng L et al (2010) Optical coherence tomography-raster scanning and manual segmentation in determining drusen volume in age-related macular degeneration. Retina 30:431–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de Sisternes L, Simon N, Tibshirani R et al (2014) Quantitative SD-OCT imaging biomarkers as indicators of age-related macular degeneration progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:7093–7103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dieaconescu DA, Dieaconescu IM, Williams MA et al (2012) Drusen height and width are highly predictive markers for progression to neovascular AMD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:2910–2910

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gregori G, Yehoshua Z, Garcia Filho CA, de A, et al (2014) Change in drusen area over time compared using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and color fundus imaging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:7662–7668

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jain N, Farsiu S, Khanifar AA et al (2010) Quantitative comparison of drusen segmented on SD-OCT versus drusen delineated on color fundus photographs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:4875–4883

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Göbel AP, Fleckenstein M, Heeren TFC et al (2016) In-vivo mapping of drusen by fundus autofluorescence and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography imaging. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254:59–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cheung CMG, Shi Y, Tham YC et al (2018) Correlation of color fundus photograph grading with risks of early age-related macular degeneration by using automated OCT-derived drusen measurements. Sci Rep 8:12937

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Diniz B, Ribeiro R, Heussen FM et al (2014) Drusen measurements comparison by fundus photograph manual delineation versus optical coherence tomography retinal pigment epithelial segmentation automated analysis. Retina 34:55–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Laura K, Laurie D, Min S et al (2016) Predictors of macular atrophy detected by fundus autofluorescence in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration after long-term ranibizumab treatment. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 47:224–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nittala MG, Amirhossein H, Wong WT et al (2015) Image scaling difference between a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope and a flash fundus camera. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 46:872–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yehoshua Z, Gregori G, Sadda SR et al (2013) Comparison of drusen area detected by spectral domain optical coherence tomography and color fundus imaging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:2429–2434

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim DY, Loo J, Farsiu S, Jaffe GJ (2021) Comparison of single drusen size on color fundus photography and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Retina 41:1715–1722

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number RO1EY023164 and R01EY030614.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Deniz Oncel, Giulia Corradetti, Yu Wakatsuki, Muneeswar Gupta Nittala, Swetha Bindu Velaga & SriniVas R. Sadda

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Deniz Oncel, Giulia Corradetti, Yu Wakatsuki, Muneeswar Gupta Nittala, Swetha Bindu Velaga & SriniVas R. Sadda

  3. Ophthalmology and Genetics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dwight Stambolian

  4. Hussman Institute for Human Genomics, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

    Margaret A. Pericak-Vance

  5. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Jonathan L. Haines

  6. Cleveland Institute for Computational Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Jonathan L. Haines

  7. Doheny Image Reading and Research Laboratory, Doheny Eye Institute, 150 N. Orange Grove Blvd, Suite 232, Pasadena, CA, 91103, USA

    SriniVas R. Sadda

Authors
  1. Deniz Oncel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulia Corradetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu Wakatsuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muneeswar Gupta Nittala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Swetha Bindu Velaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dwight Stambolian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Margaret A. Pericak-Vance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jonathan L. Haines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. SriniVas R. Sadda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to SriniVas R. Sadda.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of California – Los Angeles Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Sadda has served as a consultant for Amgen, Allergan, Genentech/Roche, Iveric, Oxurion, Novartis, Regeneron, Pfizer, 4DMT, Centervue, Heidelberg, Optos, Nanoscope, Apellis, and Jannsen. He has received speaker fees from Carl Zeiss Meditec, Nidek, and Novartis. He has received research instruments from Nidek, Topcon, Heidelberg, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Optos, and Centervue. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Srinivas R. Sadda: although the co-author is an Editor of the journal, he had no involvement with the peer review process for this article.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oncel, D., Corradetti, G., Wakatsuki, Y. et al. Drusen morphometrics on optical coherence tomography in eyes with age-related macular degeneration and normal aging. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 261, 2525–2533 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-023-06088-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-023-06088-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation