Section 2 – Structure

2.1 Technologies for measurement of optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) parameters

1. Serial optic disc stereo-photography and RNFL photography are valuable and enduring methods for monitoring structural progression.
   Comment: Stereoscopic clinical examination of optic disc and RNFL may be useful to detect change in comparison with a baseline photograph.
   Comment: Subjective estimates of cup/disc ratio only detect large changes in cupping and are insufficient for monitoring structural changes.
2. Color fundus photography is the preferred imaging modality to identify disc hemorrhages and parapapillary atrophy.
   Comment: Disc hemorrhages and beta-zone PPA are known risk factors for glaucoma progression.
3. Changes in beta-zone parapapillary atrophy can signal glaucoma progression.
   Comment: Methods for evaluating changes in PPA require further validation and include fundus photography, CLSO, and SDOCT.
4. Several imaging instruments, including confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, scanning laser polarimetry, and optical coherence tomography objectively provide reproducible measurements and quantitative assessment of the optic disc and RNFL change.
   Comment: The detection of glaucoma progression by comparing sketches or descriptions of cup disc ratio in the clinical chart is generally not suitable for an early detection of progression and may be replaced by imaging techniques and/or optic disc photography.
   Comment: Imaging instruments provide progression detection analyses that can determine whether change is greater than the measurement variability of an individual eye.
5. There are several structural components of longitudinal change detection that likely contribute to the variability of measurements.
   Comment: These include variation in clinical disc margin visibility, intersession variation and accuracy of segmentation algorithms, variation in vascular blood volume and reference plane anatomy, and longitudinal image registration.
6. Image quality can influence our ability to detect structural change.
   Comment: Automated quality indices vary by instrument and are often proprietary with little information available about how they are constructed.
   Comment: Poor quality images can lead to either false positive or false negative results.
   Comment: For patient management decisions, clinicians should review the quality of images included in glaucomatous progression assessment.
7. More than one good quality baseline image facilitates progression analysis.
   Comment: Some instruments automatically acquire several baseline images during one imaging session.

2.2 Reproducibility of digital imaging instruments

1. Measurement variability influences the ability of any device to detect progression.
   Comment: There is a wide range of reproducibility estimates in the literature for SLP, CSLO, and OCT. Although studies of comparisons of instruments within the same patient populations are limited, these techniques likely provide data of similar reproducibility.
   Comment: Overall, SDOCT has better reproducibility than TDOCT.
2. There is a lack of consensus in the literature as to whether reproducibility changes across disease severity and this may vary across measured anatomic structures and techniques.

2.3 How to detect and measure structural change?

1. Event and trend based analyses are both useful for change detection.
   Comment: These analyses do not always concur.
2. It is important to estimate the rate of structural progression for clinical management decisions.
   Comment: The rates of change obtained from measurements from optic disc, RNFL and macular parameters may vary from each other.
3. Quantitative assessment of optic disc and retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) with imaging instruments is useful and complementary for change detection.
   Comment: Data are limited on whether macular measurements may be useful for change detection.
4. Differences in technologies and scan protocols could influence the detection of progression even when the same structure is measured.
5. There is no clear consensus on which instruments or parameters are optimal to detect structural progression. As technologies evolve, new instruments and parameters which are clinically useful will emerge.

2.4. How to define clinically significant structural change?

1. Interpretation of statistically significant change should take into account test-retest variability and knowledge on the magnitude of age-related change in healthy individuals.
2. Knowledge of age-related change in healthy individuals should preferably come from actual longitudinal data and not extrapolation from cross-sectional data.
3. A statistically significant change in a structural parameter such as rim area or nerve fiber layer thickness is a relevant change, however, it may not be clinically meaningful. The latter also should take into account the age and stage of the disease as well as an assessment of risk factors present.
   Comment: Currently, we have the tools to measure statistically significant change, however, to date we do not know how to fully assess the clinical importance of this change.

2.5 Issues in clinical practice

1. The optimal frequency of imaging tests is unknown.
   Comment: It depends on the severity of the disease and on the expected speed of progression.
2. In longitudinal studies investigating optic disc and RNFL progression in glaucoma, imaging tests have been performed once a year to three times a year.
3. The same structural measures (e.g. RNFL thickness) obtained with different instruments from the same manufacturer or the same technology from different instrument manufacturers (i.e., spectral domain OCT) are not necessarily interchangeable for progression assessment.
4. Structural assessment of change is a valid method for detection of glaucomatous progression in a clinical trial.
   Comment: structural change has been shown to be predictive of future functional loss in glaucoma.

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]  下一页