Purchase this article with an account.
Mohamed Ashraf, Abdulrahman Rageh, Michael Gilbert, Dorothy Tolls, Alan Fleming, Ahmed Souka, Samir El-Baha, Jerry D. Cavallerano, Jennifer K. Sun, Lloyd Paul Aiello, Paolo S. Silva; Factors Affecting Predominantly Peripheral Lesion Identification and Grading. Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech. 2021;10(7):6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.10.7.6.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
The purpose of this study was to determine factors affecting predominantly peripheral lesion (PPL) grading, such as qualitative versus quantitative assessment, device type, and severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in ultrawide field color images (UWF-CIs).
Patients with DR had UWF-CI qualitatively graded for PPL using standardized techniques and had hemorrhages/microaneurysms (H/Mas) individually annotated for quantitative PPL grading on two different ultrawide field devices.
Among 791 eyes of 481 patients, 38.2% had mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), 34.7% had moderate NPDR, and 27.1% had severe NPDR to proliferative DR (PDR). The overall agreement between qualitative and quantitative PPL grading was moderate (ĸ = 0.423, P < 0.001). Agreement rates were fair in eyes with mild NPDR (ĸ = 0.336, P < 0.001) but moderate in eyes with moderate NPDR (ĸ = 0.525, P < 0.001) and severe NPDR-PDR (ĸ = 0.409, P < 0.001). Increasing thresholds for quantitative PPL determination improved agreement rates, with peak agreements at H/Ma count differences of six for mild NPDR, five for moderate NPDR, and nine for severe NPDR-PDR. Based on ultrawide field device type (California = 412 eyes vs. 200Tx = 379 eyes), agreement between qualitative and quantitative PPL grading was moderate for all DR severities in both devices (ĸ = 0.369−0.526, P < 0.001) except for mild NPDR on the 200Tx, which had poor agreement (ĸ = 0.055, P = 0.478).
Determination of PPL varies between standard qualitative and quantitative grading and is dependent on NPDR severity, device type, and magnitude of lesion differences used for quantitative assessment.
Prior UWF studies have not accounted for imaging and grading factors that affect PPL, such factors need to be reviewed when assessing thresholds for DR progression rates.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only