Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Comparison of short-wavelength blue-light autofluorescence and conventional blue-light autofluorescence in geographic atrophy
  1. Enrico Borrelli1,2,3,
  2. Muneeswar Gupta Nittala1,2,
  3. Nizar Saleh Abdelfattah1,2,
  4. Jianqin Lei1,2,4,
  5. Amir H Hariri1,2,
  6. Yue Shi1,2,
  7. Wenying Fan1,2,
  8. Mariano Cozzi5,
  9. Valentina Sarao6,7,
  10. Paolo Lanzetta6,7,
  11. Giovanni Staurenghi5,
  12. SriniVas R Sadda1,2
  1. 1 Doheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA
  2. 2 Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
  3. 3 Department of Medicine and Science of Ageing, Ophthalmology Clinic, University G. D'Annunzio Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
  4. 4 First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
  5. 5 Department of Medicine and Ophthalmology, University of Udine Piazzale S. Maria della Misericordia, Udine, Italy
  6. 6 Istituto Europeo di Microchirurgia Oculare—IEMO, Udine, Italy
  7. 7 Eye Clinic, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Science ‘Luigi Sacco’, Luigi Sacco Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr SriniVas R Sadda, Doheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA; ssadda{at}doheny.org

Abstract

Background/aims To systematically compare the intermodality and inter-reader agreement for two blue-light confocal fundus autofluorescence (FAF) systems.

Methods Thirty eyes (21 patients) with a diagnosis of geographic atrophy (GA) were enrolled. Eyes were imaged using two confocal blue-light FAF devices: (1) Spectralis device with a 488 nm excitation wavelength (488-FAF); (2) EIDON device with 450 nm excitation wavelength and the capability for ‘colour’ FAF imaging including both the individual red and green components of the emission spectrum. Furthermore, a third imaging modality (450-RF image) isolating and highlighting the red emission fluorescence component (REFC) was obtained and graded. Each image was graded by two readers to assess inter-reader variability and a single image for each modality was used to assess the intermodality variability.

Results The 95% coefficient of repeatability (1.35 mm2 for the 488-FAF-based grading, 8.13 mm2 for the 450-FAF-based grading and 1.08 mm2 for the 450-RF-based grading), the coefficient of variation (1.11 for 488-FAF, 2.05 for 450-FAF, 0.92 for 450-RF) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (0.994 for 488-FAF, 0.711 for 450-FAF, 0.997 for 450-RF) indicated that 450-FAF-based and 450-RF-based grading have the lowest and highest inter-reader agreements, respectively. The GA area was larger for 488-FAF images (median (IQR) 2.1 mm2 (0.8–6.4 mm2)) than for 450-FAF images (median (IQR) 1.0 mm2 (0.3–4.3 mm2); p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in lesion area measurement between 488-FAF-based and 450-RF-based grading (median (IQR) 2.6 mm2 (0.8–6.8 mm2); p=1.0).

Conclusion The isolation of the REFC from the 450-FAF images allowed for a reproducible quantification of GA. This assessment had good comparability with that obtained with 488-FAF images.

  • Autofluorescence
  • Geographic atrophy
  • Age-related macular degeneration
  • Green fluorophores
  • Optical coherence tomography.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors Study concept and design: EB and SRS. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: all authors. Drafting of the manuscript: EB and SRS. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors. Statistical analysis: EB, MGN, SRS. Study supervision: EB and SRS.

  • Funding Financial support—Bayer, CenterVue, Genentech, Novartis, Roche. GS: financial support—Novartis, Alcon, Bayer, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Roche, Zeiss Meditec, Heidelberg Engineering, Optos, CenterVue. SRS: financial support—Allergan, CenterVue, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Genentech, Iconic, Novartis, Optos, Optovue, Regeneron, Thrombogenics. 

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Parental/guardian consent obtained.

  • Ethics approval UCLA IRB.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Keith Barton James Chodosh Jost B Jonas