Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report

Davide Garzone; Jan Henrik Terheyden; Olivier Morelle; Maximilian W.M. Wintergerst; Marlene Saßmannshausen; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Maximilian Pfau; Sarah Thiele; Stephen Poor; Sergio Leal; Frank G. Holz; Robert P. Finger; H. Agostini; L. Altay; R. Atia; F. Bandello; P. G. Basile; C. Behning; M. Belmouhand; M. Berger; A. Binns; C. J.F. Boon; M. Böttger; C. Bouchet; J. E. Brazier; T. Butt; C. Carapezzi; J. Carlton; A. Carneiro; A. Charil; R. Coimbra; M. Cozzi; D. P. Crabb; J. Cunha-Vaz; C. Dahlke; L. de Sisternes; H. Dunbar; E. Fletcher; C. Francisco; M. Gutfleisch; R. Hogg; C. B. Hoyng; A. Kilani; J. Krätzschmar; L. Kühlewein; M. Larsen; Y. T.E. Lechanteur; T. Peto; C. Sánchez; D. J. Taylor; MACUSTAR Consortium

doi:10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w

Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report

Davide Garzone, Jan Henrik Terheyden, Olivier Morelle, Maximilian W.M. Wintergerst, Marlene Saßmannshausen, Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg, Maximilian Pfau, Sarah Thiele, Stephen Poor, Sergio Leal, Frank G. Holz, Robert P. Finger^*, H. Agostini, L. Altay, R. Atia, F. Bandello, P. G. Basile, C. Behning, M. Belmouhand, M. BergerA. Binns, C. J.F. Boon, M. Böttger, C. Bouchet, J. E. Brazier, T. Butt, C. Carapezzi, J. Carlton, A. Carneiro, A. Charil, R. Coimbra, M. Cozzi, D. P. Crabb, J. Cunha-Vaz, C. Dahlke, L. de Sisternes, H. Dunbar, E. Fletcher, C. Francisco, M. Gutfleisch, R. Hogg, C. B. Hoyng, A. Kilani, J. Krätzschmar, L. Kühlewein, M. Larsen, Y. T.E. Lechanteur, T. Peto, C. Sánchez, D. J. Taylor, MACUSTAR Consortium

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

31 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Drusen are hallmarks of early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) but their quantification remains a challenge. We compared automated drusen volume measurements between different OCT devices. We included 380 eyes from 200 individuals with bilateral intermediate (iAMD, n = 126), early (eAMD, n = 25) or no AMD (n = 49) from the MACUSTAR study. We assessed OCT scans from Cirrus (200 × 200 macular cube, 6 × 6 mm; Zeiss Meditec, CA) and Spectralis (20° × 20°, 25 B-scans; 30° × 25°, 241 B-scans; Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) devices. Sensitivity and specificity for drusen detection and differences between modalities were assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean difference in a 5 mm diameter fovea-centered circle. Specificity was > 90% in the three modalities. In eAMD, we observed highest sensitivity in the denser Spectralis scan (68.1). The two different Spectralis modalities showed a significantly higher agreement in quantifying drusen volume in iAMD (ICC 0.993 [0.991–0.994]) than the dense Spectralis with Cirrus scan (ICC 0.807 [0.757–0.847]). Formulae for drusen volume conversion in iAMD between the two devices are provided. Automated drusen volume measures are not interchangeable between devices and softwares and need to be interpreted with the used imaging devices and software in mind. Accounting for systematic difference between methods increases comparability and conversion formulae are provided. Less dense scans did not affect drusen volume measurements in iAMD but decreased sensitivity for medium drusen in eAMD.

Original language	English
Article number	21911
Journal	Scientific Reports
Volume	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w
Publication status	Published - 19 Dec 2022
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This project received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (Grant Agreement Number 116076). This joint undertaking received support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. The sponsors or funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of the MACUSTAR study.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General

Access to Document

10.1038/s41598-022-26223-wLicence: CC BY

Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report
Copyright 2022 the authors. This is an open access article published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the author and source are cited.
Final published version, 1.54 MBLicence: CC BY

9 Citations
1 Comment/debate

Author Correction: Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report: (Scientific Reports, (2022), 12, 1, (21911), 10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w)
MACUSTAR Consortium, 07 Mar 2023, In: Scientific Reports. 13, 1, 2 p., 3795.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Open Access
File
30 Downloads (Pure)

Cite this

Garzone, D., Terheyden, J. H., Morelle, O., Wintergerst, M. W. M., Saßmannshausen, M., Schmitz-Valckenberg, S., Pfau, M., Thiele, S., Poor, S., Leal, S., Holz, F. G., Finger, R. P., Agostini, H., Altay, L., Atia, R., Bandello, F., Basile, P. G., Behning, C., Belmouhand, M., ... MACUSTAR Consortium (2022). Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report. Scientific Reports, 12, Article 21911. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w

@article{42b2845c26ed4e708d30c0414638f15b,

title = "Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report",

abstract = "Drusen are hallmarks of early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) but their quantification remains a challenge. We compared automated drusen volume measurements between different OCT devices. We included 380 eyes from 200 individuals with bilateral intermediate (iAMD, n = 126), early (eAMD, n = 25) or no AMD (n = 49) from the MACUSTAR study. We assessed OCT scans from Cirrus (200 × 200 macular cube, 6 × 6 mm; Zeiss Meditec, CA) and Spectralis (20° × 20°, 25 B-scans; 30° × 25°, 241 B-scans; Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) devices. Sensitivity and specificity for drusen detection and differences between modalities were assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean difference in a 5 mm diameter fovea-centered circle. Specificity was > 90\% in the three modalities. In eAMD, we observed highest sensitivity in the denser Spectralis scan (68.1). The two different Spectralis modalities showed a significantly higher agreement in quantifying drusen volume in iAMD (ICC 0.993 [0.991–0.994]) than the dense Spectralis with Cirrus scan (ICC 0.807 [0.757–0.847]). Formulae for drusen volume conversion in iAMD between the two devices are provided. Automated drusen volume measures are not interchangeable between devices and softwares and need to be interpreted with the used imaging devices and software in mind. Accounting for systematic difference between methods increases comparability and conversion formulae are provided. Less dense scans did not affect drusen volume measurements in iAMD but decreased sensitivity for medium drusen in eAMD. ",

author = "Davide Garzone and Terheyden, \{Jan Henrik\} and Olivier Morelle and Wintergerst, \{Maximilian W.M.\} and Marlene Sa{\ss}mannshausen and Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg and Maximilian Pfau and Sarah Thiele and Stephen Poor and Sergio Leal and Holz, \{Frank G.\} and Finger, \{Robert P.\} and H. Agostini and L. Altay and R. Atia and F. Bandello and Basile, \{P. G.\} and C. Behning and M. Belmouhand and M. Berger and A. Binns and Boon, \{C. J.F.\} and M. B{\"o}ttger and C. Bouchet and Brazier, \{J. E.\} and T. Butt and C. Carapezzi and J. Carlton and A. Carneiro and A. Charil and R. Coimbra and M. Cozzi and Crabb, \{D. P.\} and J. Cunha-Vaz and C. Dahlke and \{de Sisternes\}, L. and H. Dunbar and E. Fletcher and C. Francisco and M. Gutfleisch and R. Hogg and Hoyng, \{C. B.\} and A. Kilani and J. Kr{\"a}tzschmar and L. K{\"u}hlewein and M. Larsen and Lechanteur, \{Y. T.E.\} and T. Peto and C. S{\'a}nchez and Taylor, \{D. J.\} and \{MACUSTAR Consortium\}",

note = "Funding Information: Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This project received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (Grant Agreement Number 116076). This joint undertaking received support from the European Union{\textquoteright}s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. The sponsors or funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of the MACUSTAR study. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

journal = "Scientific Reports",

issn = "2045-2322",

publisher = "Nature Research",

}

Garzone, D, Terheyden, JH, Morelle, O, Wintergerst, MWM, Saßmannshausen, M, Schmitz-Valckenberg, S, Pfau, M, Thiele, S, Poor, S, Leal, S, Holz, FG, Finger, RP, Agostini, H, Altay, L, Atia, R, Bandello, F, Basile, PG, Behning, C, Belmouhand, M, Berger, M, Binns, A, Boon, CJF, Böttger, M, Bouchet, C, Brazier, JE, Butt, T, Carapezzi, C, Carlton, J, Carneiro, A, Charil, A, Coimbra, R, Cozzi, M, Crabb, DP, Cunha-Vaz, J, Dahlke, C, de Sisternes, L, Dunbar, H, Fletcher, E, Francisco, C, Gutfleisch, M, Hogg, R, Hoyng, CB, Kilani, A, Krätzschmar, J, Kühlewein, L, Larsen, M, Lechanteur, YTE, Peto, T, Sánchez, C, Taylor, DJ & MACUSTAR Consortium 2022, 'Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report', Scientific Reports, vol. 12, 21911. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report

AU - Garzone, Davide

AU - Terheyden, Jan Henrik

AU - Morelle, Olivier

AU - Wintergerst, Maximilian W.M.

AU - Saßmannshausen, Marlene

AU - Schmitz-Valckenberg, Steffen

AU - Pfau, Maximilian

AU - Thiele, Sarah

AU - Poor, Stephen

AU - Leal, Sergio

AU - Holz, Frank G.

AU - Finger, Robert P.

AU - Agostini, H.

AU - Altay, L.

AU - Atia, R.

AU - Bandello, F.

AU - Basile, P. G.

AU - Behning, C.

AU - Belmouhand, M.

AU - Berger, M.

AU - Binns, A.

AU - Boon, C. J.F.

AU - Böttger, M.

AU - Bouchet, C.

AU - Brazier, J. E.

AU - Butt, T.

AU - Carapezzi, C.

AU - Carlton, J.

AU - Carneiro, A.

AU - Charil, A.

AU - Coimbra, R.

AU - Cozzi, M.

AU - Crabb, D. P.

AU - Cunha-Vaz, J.

AU - Dahlke, C.

AU - de Sisternes, L.

AU - Dunbar, H.

AU - Fletcher, E.

AU - Francisco, C.

AU - Gutfleisch, M.

AU - Hogg, R.

AU - Hoyng, C. B.

AU - Kilani, A.

AU - Krätzschmar, J.

AU - Kühlewein, L.

AU - Larsen, M.

AU - Lechanteur, Y. T.E.

AU - Peto, T.

AU - Sánchez, C.

AU - Taylor, D. J.

AU - MACUSTAR Consortium

N1 - Funding Information: Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This project received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (Grant Agreement Number 116076). This joint undertaking received support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. The sponsors or funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of the MACUSTAR study. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).

PY - 2022/12/19

Y1 - 2022/12/19

N2 - Drusen are hallmarks of early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) but their quantification remains a challenge. We compared automated drusen volume measurements between different OCT devices. We included 380 eyes from 200 individuals with bilateral intermediate (iAMD, n = 126), early (eAMD, n = 25) or no AMD (n = 49) from the MACUSTAR study. We assessed OCT scans from Cirrus (200 × 200 macular cube, 6 × 6 mm; Zeiss Meditec, CA) and Spectralis (20° × 20°, 25 B-scans; 30° × 25°, 241 B-scans; Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) devices. Sensitivity and specificity for drusen detection and differences between modalities were assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean difference in a 5 mm diameter fovea-centered circle. Specificity was > 90% in the three modalities. In eAMD, we observed highest sensitivity in the denser Spectralis scan (68.1). The two different Spectralis modalities showed a significantly higher agreement in quantifying drusen volume in iAMD (ICC 0.993 [0.991–0.994]) than the dense Spectralis with Cirrus scan (ICC 0.807 [0.757–0.847]). Formulae for drusen volume conversion in iAMD between the two devices are provided. Automated drusen volume measures are not interchangeable between devices and softwares and need to be interpreted with the used imaging devices and software in mind. Accounting for systematic difference between methods increases comparability and conversion formulae are provided. Less dense scans did not affect drusen volume measurements in iAMD but decreased sensitivity for medium drusen in eAMD.

AB - Drusen are hallmarks of early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) but their quantification remains a challenge. We compared automated drusen volume measurements between different OCT devices. We included 380 eyes from 200 individuals with bilateral intermediate (iAMD, n = 126), early (eAMD, n = 25) or no AMD (n = 49) from the MACUSTAR study. We assessed OCT scans from Cirrus (200 × 200 macular cube, 6 × 6 mm; Zeiss Meditec, CA) and Spectralis (20° × 20°, 25 B-scans; 30° × 25°, 241 B-scans; Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) devices. Sensitivity and specificity for drusen detection and differences between modalities were assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean difference in a 5 mm diameter fovea-centered circle. Specificity was > 90% in the three modalities. In eAMD, we observed highest sensitivity in the denser Spectralis scan (68.1). The two different Spectralis modalities showed a significantly higher agreement in quantifying drusen volume in iAMD (ICC 0.993 [0.991–0.994]) than the dense Spectralis with Cirrus scan (ICC 0.807 [0.757–0.847]). Formulae for drusen volume conversion in iAMD between the two devices are provided. Automated drusen volume measures are not interchangeable between devices and softwares and need to be interpreted with the used imaging devices and software in mind. Accounting for systematic difference between methods increases comparability and conversion formulae are provided. Less dense scans did not affect drusen volume measurements in iAMD but decreased sensitivity for medium drusen in eAMD.

U2 - 10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w

DO - 10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w

M3 - Article

C2 - 36535990

AN - SCOPUS:85144249416

SN - 2045-2322

VL - 12

JO - Scientific Reports

JF - Scientific Reports

M1 - 21911

ER -

Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Research output

Author Correction: Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report: (Scientific Reports, (2022), 12, 1, (21911), 10.1038/s41598-022-26223-w)

Cite this