Assessing the Accuracy of Foveal Avascular Zone Measurements Using Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography: Segmentation and Scaling

• Published in: Translational vision science & technology 2017-08, Vol.6 (3), p.16
• Main Authors: Linderman, Rachel, Salmon, Alexander E, Strampe, Margaret, Russillo, Madia, Khan, Jamil, Carroll, Joseph
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2164-2591; 2164-2591
• DOI: 10.1167/tvst.6.3.16

The foveal avascular zone (FAZ) is altered in numerous diseases. We assessed factors (axial length, segmentation method, age, sex) impacting FAZ measurements from optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography images. We recruited 116 Caucasian subjects without ocular disease, and acquired two 3 × 3 mm AngioVue scans per each right eye (232 total scans). In images of the superficial plexus, the FAZ was segmented using the AngioVue semiautomatic nonflow measurement tool and ImageJ manual segmentation. In images from the full retinal thickness, the FAZ was segmented using the AngioAnalytics automatic FAZ tool. Repeatability, reliability, and reproducibility were calculated for FAZ measurements (acircularity, area). FAZ area (mean ± SD) for manual segmentation was 0.240 ± 0.0965 mm , greater than both semiautomatic (0.216 ± 0.0873 mm ) and automatic (0.218 ± 0.0869 mm ) segmentation ( < 0.05). Not correcting for axial length introduced errors up to 25% in FAZ area. Manual area segmentation had better repeatability (0.020 mm ) than semiautomatic (0.043 mm ) or automatic (0.056 mm ). FAZ acircularity had better repeatability with automatic than manual segmentation (0.086 vs. 0.114). Reliability of all area measurements was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.994 manual, 0.969 semiautomatic, 0.948 automatic). Reliability of acircularity measurements was 0.879 for manual and 0.606 for automatic. We identified numerous factors affecting FAZ measurements. These errors confound comparisons across studies and studies examining factors that may correlate with FAZ measures. Using FAZ measurements as biomarkers for disease progression requires assessing and controlling for different sources of error. Not correcting for ocular magnification can result in significant inaccuracy in FAZ measurements, while choice of segmentation method affects both repeatability and accuracy.