The effect of disc size and severity of disease on the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph Glaucoma Probability Score.

PURPOSE To compare the effect of disc size and disease severity on the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) Glaucoma Probability Score (GPS) and the Moorfields Regression Analysis (MRA) for discriminating between glaucomatous and healthy eyes. METHODS Ninety-nine eyes with repeatable standard automated perimetry results showing glaucomatous damage and 62 normal eyes were included from the longitudinal Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS). The severity of glaucomatous visual field defects ranged from early to severe (average [95% CI] pattern standard deviation [PSD] was 5.7 [5.0-6.5] dB). The GPS (HRTII ver. 3.0; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) utilizes two measures of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer shape (horizontal and vertical retinal nerve fiber layer curvature) and three measures of optic nerve head shape (cup depth, rim steepness, and cup size) as input into a relevance vector machine learning classifier that estimates a probability of having glaucoma. The MRA compares measured rim area with predicted rim area adjusted for disc size to categorize eyes as outside normal limits, borderline, or within normal limits. The effect of disc size and severity of disease on the diagnostic accuracy of both GPS and MRA was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation marginal logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Using the manufacturers' suggested cutoffs for GPS global classification (>64% as outside normal limits), the sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 71.7% (62.2%-79.7%) and 82.3% (71.0%-89.8%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of the MRA result were 66.7% (58.0%-76.1%) and 88.7% (78.5%-94.34%), respectively. Likelihood ratios for regional GPS and MRA results outside normal limits ranged from 4.0 to 10.0, and 6.0 to infinity, respectively. Disc size and severity of disease were significantly associated with the sensitivity of both GPS and MRA. CONCLUSIONS GPS tended to have higher sensitivities and somewhat lower specificities and lower likelihood ratios than MRA. These results suggest that in this population, GPS and MRA differentiate between glaucomatous and healthy eyes with good sensitivity and specificity. In addition, the likelihood ratios suggest that GPS may be most useful for confirming a normal disc, whereas MRA may be most helpful in confirming a suspicion of glaucoma. Larger disc size and more severe field loss were associated with improved diagnostic accuracy for both GPS and MRA.

[1]  G. Wollstein,et al.  Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. , 1998, Ophthalmology.

[2]  J. Jonas,et al.  Discriminant analysis models for early detection of glaucomatous optic disc changes , 2000, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  M. Nicolela,et al.  Comparison of data analysis tools for detection of glaucoma with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[4]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1994, JAMA.

[5]  N. Swindale,et al.  Automated analysis of normal and glaucomatous optic nerve head topography images. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  Luca Rossetti,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of optic disc stereometric parameters by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[7]  E. B. Wilson Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference , 1927 .

[8]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[9]  G. Samsa,et al.  Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  F. Medeiros,et al.  Optic Nerve Imaging: Recent Advances , 2004 .

[11]  F. Medeiros,et al.  Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma. , 2004, Archives of ophthalmology.

[12]  W Leisenring,et al.  A marginal regression modelling framework for evaluating medical diagnostic tests. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  Jost B Jonas,et al.  GEE approaches to marginal regression models for medical diagnostic tests , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[15]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: III. How to Use an Article About a Diagnostic Test: B. What Are the Results and Will They Help Me In Caring for My Patients? , 1994 .

[16]  A. Coleman,et al.  Comparison of optic nerve imaging methods to distinguish normal eyes from those with glaucoma. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. , 1994, Ophthalmology.

[18]  L. Zangwill,et al.  Discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph. , 2001, Archives of ophthalmology.

[19]  J. Koppens Essentials in Ophthalmology: Glaucoma , 2008 .

[20]  F. Medeiros,et al.  Influence of disease severity and optic disc size on the diagnostic performance of imaging instruments in glaucoma. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  R. Ritch,et al.  Detection of glaucoma using operator-dependent versus operator-independent classification in the Heidelberg retinal tomograph-III , 2006, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[22]  F. Horn,et al.  Influence of optic disc size on the sensitivity of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph , 1998, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[23]  R. Newcombe Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  C. Langlotz Fundamental measures of diagnostic examination performance: usefulness for clinical decision making and research. , 2003, Radiology.

[25]  S. Drance,et al.  The effect of optic disc size on diagnostic precision with the Heidelberg retina tomograph. , 1997, Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.).

[26]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. , 1993, JAMA.

[27]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Imaging of the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer: the effects of age, optic disc area, refractive error, and gender. , 2002, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[28]  P A Sample,et al.  Detection of early glaucomatous structural damage with confocal scanning laser tomography. , 1998, Journal of glaucoma.

[29]  J. Jonas,et al.  Interobserver variability of optic disk variables measured by confocal scanning laser tomography. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[30]  P. Artes,et al.  Automated analysis of heidelberg retina tomograph optic disc images by glaucoma probability score. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.