Comparison of Drusen Volume Assessed by Two Different OCT Devices

• Published in: Journal of clinical medicine 2020-08, Vol.9 (8), p.2657
• Main Authors: Beck, Marco, Joshi, Devika S., Berger, Lieselotte, Klose, Gerd, De Zanet, Sandro, Mosinska, Agata, Apostolopoulos, Stefanos, Ebneter, Andreas, Zinkernagel, Martin S., Wolf, Sebastian, Munk, Marion R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Automation; Boundaries; Clinical medicine; Macular degeneration; Reproducibility; Software
• ISSN: 2077-0383; 2077-0383
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm9082657

To compare drusen volume between Heidelberg Spectral Domain (SD-) and Zeiss Swept-Source (SS) PlexElite Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) determined by manual and automated segmentation methods. Thirty-two eyes of 24 patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) and drusen maculopathy were included. In the central 1 and 3 mm ETDRS circle drusen volumes were calculated and compared. Drusen segmentation was performed using automated manufacturer algorithms of the two OCT devices. Then, the automated segmentation was manually corrected and compared and finally analyzed using customized software. Though on SD-OCT, there was a significant difference of mean drusen volume prior to and after manual correction (mean difference: 0.0188 ± 0.0269 mm3, p < 0.001, corr. p < 0.001, correlation of r = 0.90), there was no difference found on SS-OCT (mean difference: 0.0001 ± 0.0003 mm3, p = 0.262, corr. p = 0.524, r = 1.0). Heidelberg-acquired mean drusen volume after manual correction was significantly different from Zeiss-acquired drusen volume after manual correction (mean difference: 0.1231 ± 0.0371 mm3, p < 0.001, corr. p < 0.001, r = 0.68). Using customized software, the difference of measurements between both devices decreased and correlation among the measurements improved (mean difference: 0.0547 ± 0.0744 mm3, p = 0.02, corr. p = 0.08, r = 0.937). Heidelberg SD-OCT, the Zeiss PlexElite SS-OCT, and customized software all measured significantly different drusen volumes. Therefore, devices/algorithms may not be interchangeable. Third-party customized software helps to minimize differences, which may allow a pooling of data of different devices, e.g., in multicenter trials.