Diagnostic Capability of Scanning Laser Polarimetry with and without Enhanced Corneal Compensation and Optical Coherence Tomography

Comparison of Laser Scanning Diagnostic Devices for Early Glaucoma Detection

BACKGROUND

To compare the diagnostic accuracy and to evaluate the correlation of optic nerve head and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness values between Fourier-Domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT), confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (CSLO), and scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) for early glaucoma detection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety-three patients with early open-angle glaucoma, 58 patients with ocular hypertension, and 60 healthy control subjects were included in this observational, cross-sectional study. All study participants underwent FD-OCT (RTVue-100), CSLO (HRT3), and SLP (GDx VCC) imaging of the optic nerve head and the retinal nerve fiber layer. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The parameters with the highest diagnostic accuracy were found for FD-OCT cup-to-disc ratio (AUROC=0.841), for SLP NFI (AUROC=0.835), and for CSLO cup-to-disc ratio (AUROC=0.789). Diagnostic accuracy of the best CSLO and SLP parameter was similar (P=0.259). There was a small statistically significant difference between the best CSLO and FD-OCT parameters for differentiating between glaucoma and healthy eyes (P=0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

FD-OCT and SLP have a similarly good diagnostic ability to distinguish between early glaucoma and healthy subjects. The diagnostic accuracy of CSLO was comparable with SLP and marginally lower compared with FD-OCT.

Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of glaucoma is traditionally based on the finding of optic nerve head (ONH) damage assessed subjectively by ophthalmoscopy or photography or by corresponding damage to the visual field assessed by automated perimetry, or both. Diagnostic assessments are usually required when ophthalmologists or primary eye care professionals find elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) or a suspect appearance of the ONH. Imaging tests such as confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (HRT), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and scanning laser polarimetry (SLP, as used by the GDx instrument), provide an objective measure of the structural changes of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and ONH parameters occurring in glaucoma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HRT, OCT and GDx for diagnosing manifest glaucoma by detecting ONH and RNFL damage.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched several databases for this review. The most recent searches were on 19 February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies that evaluated the accuracy of OCT, HRT or the GDx for diagnosing glaucoma. We excluded population-based screening studies, since we planned to consider studies on self-referred people or participants in whom a risk factor for glaucoma had already been identified in primary care, such as elevated IOP or a family history of glaucoma. We only considered recent commercial versions of the tests: spectral domain OCT, HRT III and GDx VCC or ECC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adopted standard Cochrane methods. We fitted a hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) model using the METADAS macro in SAS software. After studies were selected, we decided to use 2 x 2 data at 0.95 specificity or closer in meta-analyses, since this was the most commonly-reported level.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 106 studies in this review, which analysed 16,260 eyes (8353 cases, 7907 controls) in total. Forty studies (5574 participants) assessed GDx, 18 studies (3550 participants) HRT, and 63 (9390 participants) OCT, with 12 of these studies comparing two or three tests. Regarding study quality, a case-control design in 103 studies raised concerns as it can overestimate accuracy and reduce the applicability of the results to daily practice. Twenty-four studies were sponsored by the manufacturer, and in 15 the potential conflict of interest was unclear.Comparisons made within each test were more reliable than those between tests, as they were mostly based on direct comparisons within each study.The Nerve Fibre Indicator yielded the highest accuracy (estimate, 95% confidence interval (CI)) among GDx parameters (sensitivity: 0.67, 0.55 to 0.77; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95). For HRT measures, the Vertical Cup/Disc (C/D) ratio (sensitivity: 0.72, 0.60 to 0.68; specificity: 0.94, 0.92 to 0.95) was no different from other parameters. With OCT, the accuracy of average RNFL retinal thickness was similar to the inferior sector (0.72, 0.65 to 0.77; specificity: 0.93, 0.92 to 0.95) and, in different studies, to the vertical C/D ratio.Comparing the parameters with the highest diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for each device in a single HSROC model, the performance of GDx, HRT and OCT was remarkably similar. At a sensitivity of 0.70 and a high specificity close to 0.95 as in most of these studies, in 1000 people referred by primary eye care, of whom 200 have manifest glaucoma, such as in those who have already undergone some functional or anatomic testing by optometrists, the best measures of GDx, HRT and OCT would miss about 60 cases out of the 200 patients with glaucoma, and would incorrectly refer 50 out of 800 patients without glaucoma. If prevalence were 5%, e.g. such as in people referred only because of family history of glaucoma, the corresponding figures would be 15 patients missed out of 50 with manifest glaucoma, avoiding referral of about 890 out of 950 non-glaucomatous people.Heterogeneity investigations found that sensitivity estimate was higher for studies with more severe glaucoma, expressed as worse average mean deviation (MD): 0.79 (0.74 to 0.83) for MD < -6 db versus 0.64 (0.60 to 0.69) for MD ≥ -6 db, at a similar summary specificity (0.93, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.94 and, respectively, 0.94; 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95; P < 0.0001 for the difference in relative DOR).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of imaging tests for detecting manifest glaucoma was variable across studies, but overall similar for different devices. Accuracy may have been overestimated due to the case-control design, which is a serious limitation of the current evidence base.We recommend that further diagnostic accuracy studies are carried out on patients selected consecutively at a defined step of the clinical pathway, providing a description of risk factors leading to referral and bearing in mind the consequences of false positives and false negatives in the setting in which the diagnostic question is made. Future research should report accuracy for each threshold of these continuous measures, or publish raw data.

Peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer assessment of spectral domain optical coherence tomography and scanning laser polarimetry to diagnose preperimetric glaucoma

Purpose

To compare the abilities of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) parameters of spectral domain optical coherence tomograph (SDOCT) and scanning laser polarimeter (GDx enhanced corneal compensation; ECC) in detecting preperimetric glaucoma.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study, 35 preperimetric glaucoma eyes (32 subjects) and 94 control eyes (74 subjects) underwent digital optic disc photography and RNFL imaging with SDOCT and GDx ECC. Ability of RNFL parameters of SDOCT and GDx ECC to discriminate preperimetric glaucoma eyes from control eyes was compared using area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), sensitivities at fixed specificities and likelihood ratios (LR).

Results

AUC of the global average RNFL thickness of SDOCT (0.786) was significantly greater (p<0.001) than that of GDx ECC (0.627). Sensitivities at 95% specificity of the corresponding parameters were 20% and 8.6% respectively. AUCs of the inferior, superior and temporal quadrant RNFL thickness parameters of SDOCT were also significantly (p<0.05) greater than the respective RNFL parameters of GDx ECC. LRs of outside normal limits category of SDOCT parameters ranged between 3.3 and 4.0 while the same of GDx ECC parameters ranged between 1.2 and 2.1. LRs of within normal limits category of SDOCT parameters ranged between 0.4 and 0.7 while the same of GDx ECC parameters ranged between 0.7 and 1.0.

Conclusions

Abilities of the RNFL parameters of SDOCT and GDx ECC to diagnose preperimetric glaucoma were only moderate. Diagnostic abilities of the RNFL parameters of SDOCT were significantly better than that of GDx ECC in preperimetric glaucoma.

Retinal nerve fiber layer evaluation of spectral domain optical coherence tomograph and scanning laser polarimeter to diagnose glaucoma

PURPOSE

To compare the abilities of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) parameters of spectral domain optical coherence tomograph (SDOCT) and scanning laser polarimeter (GDx enhanced corneal compensation; ECC) in detecting glaucoma.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, 215 eyes of 165 subjects (106 eyes of 79 glaucoma patients and 109 eyes of 86 controls) referred by general ophthalmologists for glaucoma evaluation underwent RNFL imaging with SDOCT and GDx ECC. Ability of RNFL parameters of SDOCT to discriminate glaucoma eyes from control eyes was compared with that of GDx ECC using area under operating characteristic curves (AUCs), sensitivities at fixed specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs).

RESULTS

AUC of the average RNFL thickness of SDOCT to differentiate glaucoma from control eyes (0.868) was comparable (P=0.32) to that of GDx ECC (0.855). Sensitivity at 95% specificity was 63.2% for average RNFL thickness of SDOCT and 48.1% for the average RNFL measurement of GDx ECC. LRs of outside normal limits category of SDOCT parameters ranged between 5.6 and 7.7 while the same of GDx ECC parameters ranged between 3.1 and 3.7. LRs of within normal limits category of SDOCT parameters ranged between 0.18 and 0.24 while the same of GDx ECC parameters ranged between 0.20 and 0.32.

CONCLUSION

Though AUCs and sensitivities at fixed specificities were comparable between the RNFL parameters of SDOCT and GDx ECC in diagnosing glaucoma, LRs indicated that the RNFL parameters of SDOCT were better in 'ruling in' glaucoma.

Glaucoma diagnostics

This thesis addresses several aspects of glaucoma diagnostics from both a clinical and a screening perspective. New instruments for diagnosing glaucoma have been developed over the past years, but little information is available regarding their performance as screening methods and their usefulness in ordinary clinical practice. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH UNDERLYING THIS THESIS:  The objectives of this research were as follows: to compare the accuracy of results of analysis of the optic nerve head (ONH) achieved by computerized imaging using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) and by subjective assessment performed by physicians with different degrees of experience of glaucoma (paper III); to evaluate the effect of a continuous medical education (CME) lecture on subjective assessment of the ONH for diagnosis of glaucoma (paper II); to investigate subjective assessment of perimetric test results by physicians with varying knowledge of glaucoma with a trained artificial neural network (ANN) and to compare the certainty of the classifications (paper IV); and to compare the diagnostic performance of time-domain Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT) with that of spectral-domain Cirrus OCT (paper I), frequency doubling technology (FDT) screening perimetry and scanning laser polarimetry with the GDx variable corneal compensator (VCC) in a random population-based sample and in patients with glaucoma of varying disease severity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

  In evaluation of the ONH, use of the HRT statistical tools, Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) and the Glaucoma Probability Score (GPS) was compared with subjective assessment performed by 45 physicians. Optic nerve head images and photographs from 138 healthy and 97 glaucoma subjects were included. The sensitivity of MRA was higher (87-94%) than that of the average physician (62-82%), considerably greater than that of ophthalmologists with subspecialties other than glaucoma (53-77%) and non-significantly better than that of glaucoma experts (72-88%). Sensitivity achieved by GPS (79-93%) was also greater than that of the average physician. MRA correctly classified all eyes with advanced glaucomatous visual field defects, a result that was not achieved by GPS or even by the glaucoma experts. In eyes with small discs, MRA sensitivity (88%) was comparable with that of glaucoma experts (85%) and much better than that of GPS (50%). Also, the group comprising all physicians provided specificity (75-92%) similar to that of both MRA (69 - 86%) and GPS (72-94%) (Andersson et al. 2011a). A 1-hr CME lecture on ONH assessment led to a significant improvement in sensitivity (from 70% to 80%) and a significant decrease in uncertain assessments (from 22% to 13%), whereas specificity remained unchanged (68%) (Andersson et al. 2011b). A rise in sensitivity was seen in all subgroups of physicians, including glaucoma experts. Thirty physicians assessing standard automated perimetry (SAP) test results as Humphrey Field Analyzer single-field analysis printouts with full StatPac information from 99 patients with glaucoma and 66 healthy subjects were compared with a trained ANN regarding diagnostic performance. ANN reached significantly higher sensitivity (93%) than the average physician (83%), whereas specificity was similar for these two groups (91% and 90%, respectively). Diagnostic accuracy was similar among the different groups of physicians and seemingly rather independent of experience. Sensitivity ranged from 82% in the subgroup of other subspecialists to 87% in the glaucoma expert group, and specificity ranged from 88% among general ophthalmologists to 91% for glaucoma experts. The ANN attained certainty of classification that was in parity with that provided by the glaucoma experts and did not make any completely incorrect classifications of the visual fields (i.e. erroneous classifications were in the borderline zone) (Andersson et al. 2012). From a population-based randomly selected sample (n=308) of older subjects (aged ≥ 50 years) living in southern Sweden, 170 subjects underwent a comprehensive examination that included Stratus OCT, Cirrus OCT, an FDT screening programme and the GDx VCC. The same test protocol was applied to 138 randomized clinical patients with different stages of glaucoma. In the population-based sample, both Stratus and Cirrus OCT showed high diagnostic accuracy with area under the receiver-operating curve (aROC) values close to 1.0 (Bengtsson et al. 2012). Both OCT instruments correctly classified all of the clinical glaucoma patients with advanced disease. FDT screening showed high sensitivity (91%) but erroneously gave normal test results for some eyes with advanced disease. GDx VCC had lower sensitivity (73-92%) and also led to a large proportion of examinations with an atypical retardation pattern that is known to affect the diagnostic efficiency of this instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

  The HRT MRA performed better than most physicians and was consistent with the glaucoma experts. These results suggest that MRA can be a valuable tool for diagnosing glaucoma in ordinary practice, particularly when only a few glaucoma experts are available. Even though MRA provided 100% sensitivity in eyes with advanced glaucoma, it probably does not offer sufficient specificity to make it suitable as a screening method. Continuing medical education on ONH analysis had a small, but positive effect on diagnostic accuracy for glaucoma. An ANN trained to classify visual fields seemed to perform at least as well as most of the participating physicians, whose performances were remarkably similar regardless of their level of experience. This indicates that available tools for interpreting SAP findings are helpful in assessments of visual field test results. However, SAP is associated with learning effects (Heijl et al. 1989) that may entail low specificity for untrained subjects, and hence, it is not an ideal screening method for glaucoma. By comparison, the screening test of FDT is rapid and easy, but it is probably less suitable for screening purpose, because some eyes with advanced glaucoma were missed in this investigation. GDx VCC images for a relatively large number of eyes could not be analysed and is thus not appropriate for screening. The OCT instruments offer both high sensitivity and high specificity, and all eyes with advanced disease were correctly classified as glaucomatous in this evaluation. However, these instruments are still expensive and require special operator skills. Additional development to obtain OCT instrument that is more compact, easier to use and less expensive might render such tomography suitable as a screening tool for glaucoma.

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of the RTVue Fourier-Domain OCT and the GDx-VCC/ECC Polarimeter to Detect Glaucoma

Purpose

To compare sensitivity and specificity of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFLT) measurements made using RTVue-100 Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography (RTVue-OCT) and scanning laser polarimetry with variable (GDx-VCC) or enhanced compensation (GDx-ECC).

Methods

One eye of each of 177 consecutive patients was imaged. Healthy (n=50) and ocular hypertensive (n=28) eyes were defined as structurally undamaged, preperimetric (n=33) and perimetric (n=66) glaucoma eyes as diseased.

Results

For average RNFLT, sensitivity was higher (χ2 test, p=0.002) with RTVue-OCT (65.7%) than with GDx-VCC (49.5%). For superior and inferior RNFLT, sensitivity was similar with all methods. For the different nerve fiber bundle parameters, sensitivity of RTVue-OCT (64.6% to 84.8%) was consistently up to 35% higher (p<0.001) than that of GDx-VCC/ECC (28.3% to 72.7%). Specificity ranged from 84.6% to 98.7% with RTVue-OCT, 92.3% to 100% with GDx-VCC, and 94.9% to 100% with GDx-ECC, with no significant difference between the methods except for one nerve fiber bundle parameter, for which RTVue-OCT was less specific than either GDx method (p≤0.004). Diagnostic accuracy of the GDx-VCC/ECC nerve fiber indicator (NFI) and RTVue-OCT average RNFLT were similar. Of the detected glaucoma cases, 87.7% were identified both by GDx-VCC/ECC NFI and average RNFLT of RTVue-OCT.

Conclusions

In this clinical setting, all methods were similarly highly specific, but for localized RNFLT damage RTVue-OCT was statistically and clinically significantly more sensitive than GDx-VCC and GDx-ECC. Most detected glaucoma cases were identified with all 3 methods.