Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of Blue-Light Autofluorescence and Ultrawidefield Green-Light Autofluorescence for Assessing Geographic Atrophy.

Ophthalmology Retina 2024 April 26
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate and compare the intermodality and interreader agreement of manual and semiautomated geographic atrophy (GA) area measurements in eyes with GA due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using conventional blue-light fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and ultrawidefield (UWF) green-light FAF systems.

DESIGN: Prospective Cohort Study.

SUBJECTS: Seventy-two eyes of 50 patients with a diagnosis of advanced nonneovascular AMD with GA.

METHODS: Fundus autofluorescence images of eyes with GA were obtained during a single visit using both the Spectralis HRA + OCT2 device and the Optos California device. The area of the GA lesion(s) was segmented and quantified (mm2 ) with a fully manual approach where the lesions were outlined using Optos Advance and Heidelberg Eye Explorer (HEYEX) software. In addition, for the Heidelberg blue FAF images, GA lesions were also measured using the instrument's semiautomated software (Region Finder 2.6.4). For comparison between modalities/grading method, the mean values of the 2 graders were used. Intraclass correlation coefficients were computed to judge the agreement between graders.

RESULTS: Seventy-two eyes of 50 patients were included in this study. There was nearly perfect agreement between graders for the measurement of GA area for all 3 modalities (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.996 for manual Optos Advance, 0.996 for manual Heidelberg HEYEX, and 0.995 for Heidelberg Region Finder). The measurement of GA area was strongly correlated between modalities, with Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.985 (P < 0.001) between manual Heidelberg and manual Optos, 0.991 (P < 0.001) for Region Finder versus manual Heidelberg, and 0.985 (P < 0.001) for Region Finder versus manual Optos. The absolute mean area differences between the Heidelberg manual versus Region Finder, manual Optos versus Region Finder, and manual Optos versus manual Heidelberg were 1.61 mm2 (P < 0.001), 0.90 mm2 (P < 0.006), and 0.71 mm2 (P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: We observed excellent interreader agreement for measurement of GA using either 30-degree blue-light FAF or UWF green-light FAF, establishing the reliability of UWF imaging for macular GA assessment. Although the absolute measurements between devices were strongly correlated, they differed significantly, highlighting the importance of using the same device for a given patient for the duration of a study.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app