Application of optical coherence tomography in glaucoma suspect eyes
Article first published online: 10 OCT 2011
© 2011 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2011 Optometrists Association Australia
Clinical and Experimental Optometry
Volume 95, Issue 1, pages 78–88, January 2012
How to Cite
Pomorska, M., Krzyżanowska-Berkowska, P., Misiuk-Hojło, M., Zając-Pytrus, H. and Grzybowski, A. (2012), Application of optical coherence tomography in glaucoma suspect eyes. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 95: 78–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2011.00654.x
- Issue published online: 28 DEC 2011
- Article first published online: 10 OCT 2011
- Submitted: 7 December 2010; Revised: 25 May 2011; Accepted for publication: 27 May 2011
- glaucoma suspects;
- linear discriminant analysis;
- machine learning classifiers;
- optic nerve head;
- optical coherence tomography;
- retinal nerve fibre layer
Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters of the optic nerve head (ONH) and retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) and to identify which measurements are best able to differentiate between normal and glaucoma suspect eyes.
Methods: The study included 27 eyes with ocular hypertension (OHT), 33 eyes with pre-perimetric glaucoma (PG), 30 perimetrically unaffected eyes of patients with glaucoma in the fellow eye (FE) and 58 eyes of age-matched normal volunteers. All subjects underwent a complete eye examination with standard automated perimetry, optic disc photography and OCT imaging. Peripapillary ‘fast RNFL thickness scans’ and ‘fast optic disc scans’ were performed with time-domain OCT. The ONH and RNFL parameters were compared among the four study groups. The ONH and RNFL parameters were examined alone and then combined via four linear discriminant functions (LDF): LDF 1, the optimal combination of ONH parameters; LDF 2, the optimal combination of RNFL parameters; LDF 3, the optimal combination of both ONH and RNFL parameters; and LDF 4, the optimal combination of the best 11 parameters. The areas under the receiver operating curves (AUC) and the sensitivity at fixed specificity of at least 80 and 95 per cent were calculated for single parameters and LDF combinations and then compared. The best 11 parameters were selected based on their AUC values.
Results: Comparative analysis of OCT parameters revealed statistically significant differences in all seven ONH parameters in both PG and FE groups (and only in one ONH measurement in the ocular hypertensive group) when compared with normal eyes. Most of the RNFL parameters demonstrated statistically significant differences in all of the study groups when compared with the control group. The max-min parameter (0.835), inferior quadrant (0.833) and average RNFL thickness (0.829) obtained the highest AUC values in the whole glaucoma suspect group. The rim area had the best diagnostic accuracy among the ONH parameters (AUC = 0.817). The AUC values of the four LDF were: 0.825 (LDF 1), 0.882 (LDF 2), 0.902 (LDF 3) and 0.888 (LDF 4). Statistically significant differences were found between the AUC values of the single best ONH and RNFL parameters and LDF 3 and LDF 4.
Conclusions: In the present study, RNFL parameters presented with better discriminatory abilities than ONH parameters in the OHT and FE groups. The ONH parameters demonstrated better diagnostic precision in differentiating between PG and normal eyes. The average RNFL thickness, max–min parameter and inferior quadrant RNFL thickness had the best abilities among single OCT measurements for discriminating between glaucoma suspect (including all ocular hypertensive, PG and FE eyes) and normal eyes. The combination of RNFL parameters only or both ONH and RNFL parameters, using linear discriminant analysis, provided the best classification results, improving the diagnostic accuracy of the instrument.