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

Rachel Linderman; Alexander E Salmon; Margaret Strampe; Madia Russillo; Jamil Khan; Joseph Carroll

doi:10.1167/tvst.6.3.16

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

Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017 Jun 9;6(3):16. doi: 10.1167/tvst.6.3.16. eCollection 2017 Jun.

Authors

Rachel Linderman¹, Alexander E Salmon², Margaret Strampe^{1

3}, Madia Russillo⁴, Jamil Khan⁴, Joseph Carroll^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
² Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, & Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
³ University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
⁴ Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: 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.

Methods: 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).

Results: FAZ area (mean ± SD) for manual segmentation was 0.240 ± 0.0965 mm², greater than both semiautomatic (0.216 ± 0.0873 mm²) and automatic (0.218 ± 0.0869 mm²) segmentation (P < 0.05). Not correcting for axial length introduced errors up to 25% in FAZ area. Manual area segmentation had better repeatability (0.020 mm²) than semiautomatic (0.043 mm²) or automatic (0.056 mm²). 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.

Conclusion: We identified numerous factors affecting FAZ measurements. These errors confound comparisons across studies and studies examining factors that may correlate with FAZ measures.

Translational relevance: 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.

Keywords: acircularity; foveal avascular zone; imaging; ocular magnification; optical coherence tomography angiography; repeatability.

Abstract

Grants and funding