Download fulltext
HTML
1.
Kamalipour A, Moghimi S. Macular Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging in Glaucoma. JOVR [Internet]. 2021Jul.29 [cited 2024Apr.25];16(3):478–489. Available from: https://knepublishing.com/index.php/JOVR/article/view/9442
https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v16i3.9442
statistics
- 1334 Abstract Views
- 557 PDF Views
- 0 HTML Views
- Cited by 2 articles
authors
-
Alireza Kamalipour
Alireza Kamalipour
Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States
-
Sasan Moghimi
Sasan Moghimi
Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States
Published Date
- Jul 29, 2021
Macular Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging in Glaucoma
Abstract
The advent of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography has played a transformative role in posterior segment imaging of the eye. Traditionally, images of the optic nerve head and the peripapillary area have been used to evaluate the structural changes associated with glaucoma. Recently, there is growing evidence in the literature supporting the use of macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography as a complementary tool for clinical evaluation and research purposes in glaucoma.
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Glaucoma, Imaging, Macula, Optical Coherence Tomography
References
1. Weinreb RN, Leung CK, Crowston JG, Medeiros FA, Friedman DS, Wiggs JL, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016;2:1–19.
2. Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FAJJ. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA 2014;311:1901– 1911.
3. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:262–267.
4. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1989;107:453–464.
5. Quigley HA, Nickells RW, Kerrigan LA, et al. Retinal ganglion cell death in experimental glaucoma and after axotomy occurs by apoptosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:774–786.
6. Coleman AL. Glaucoma. The Lancet 1999;354:1803–1810.
7. Weinreb RN, Friedman DS, Fechtner RD, Cioffi GA, Coleman AL, Girkin CA, et al. Risk assessment in the management of patients with ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138:458–467.
8. Alencar LM, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Bowd C, Vizzeri G, Sample PA, et al. Agreement for detecting glaucoma progression with the GDx guided progression analysis, automated perimetry, and optic disc photography. Opthalmology 2010;117:462–470.
9. Alexandrescu C, Dascalu A, Panca A, Sescioreanu A, Mitulescu C, Ciuluvica R, et al. Confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma diagnosis and management. J Med Life 2010;3:229.
10. Andreou PA, Wickremasinghe SS, Asaria RH, Tay E, Franks WA. A comparison of HRT II and GDx imaging for glaucoma detection in a primary care eye clinic setting. Eye 2007;21:1050–1055.
11. Belghith A, Balasubramanian M, Bowd C, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM. A unified framework for glaucoma progression detection using Heidelberg Retina Tomograph images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2014;38:411–420.
12. Haleem MS, Han L, van Hemert J, Fleming A, Pasquale LR, Silva PS, et al. Regional image features model for automatic classification between normal and glaucoma in fundus and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) images. J Med Syst 2016;40:132.
13. Lin SC, Singh K, Jampel HD, Hodapp EA, Smith SD, Francis BA, et al. Optic nerve head and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1937–1949.
14. Sharma P, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Schuman JS. Diagnostic tools for glaucoma detection and management. Surv Ophthalmol 2008;53:S17–S32.
15. Stein JD, Talwar N, LaVerne AM, Nan B, Lichter PR. Trends in use of ancillary glaucoma tests for patients with open-angle glaucoma from 2001 to 2009. Ophthalmology 2012;119:748–758.
16. Drexler W, Fujimoto JG. State-of-the-art retinal optical coherence tomography. Prog Retin Eye Res 2008;27:45– 88.
17. Schuman JS, Hee MR, Arya AV, Pedut-Kloizman T, Puliafito CA, Fujimoto JG, et al. Optical coherence tomography: a new tool for glaucoma diagnosis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1995;6:89–95.
18. Mohammadzadeh V, Fatehi N, Yarmohammadi A, Woong Lee J, Sharifipour F, Daneshvar R, et al. Macular imaging with optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 2020;65:597–638.
19. Hood DC, De Moraes CG. Challenges to the common clinical paradigm for diagnosis of glaucomatous damage with OCT and visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2018;59:788–791.
20. Hood DC, De Moraes CG. Four questions for every clinician diagnosing and monitoring glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2018;27:657.
21. Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CGV, Liebmann JM, Ritch RJPir. Glaucomatous damage of the macula. Prog Retin Eye Res 2013;32:1–21.
22. Zangwill LM, Jain S, Racette L, Ernstrom KB, Bowd C, Medeiros FA, et al. The effect of disc size and severity of disease on the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph Glaucoma Probability Score. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:2653–2660.
23. Rao HL, Leite MT, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Alencar LM, Sample PA, et al. Effect of disease severity and optic disc size on diagnostic accuracy of RTVue spectral domain optical coherence tomograph in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:1290–1296.
24. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Influence of disease severity and optic disc size on the diagnostic performance of imaging instruments in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1008–1015.
25. Leite MT, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Rao HL, Alencar LM, Sample PA, et al. Effect of disease severity on the performance of cirrus spectral-domain oct for glaucoma diagnosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:4104–4109.
26. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Nowroozizadeh S, Nassiri N, Cirineo N, Knipping S, Giaconi J, et al. Macular ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer measurements by spectral domain optical coherence tomography for detection of early glaucoma and comparison to retinal nerve fiber layer measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156:1297–1307.e2.
27. Shin H-Y, Park H-YL, Jung Y, Choi J-A, Park CKJO. Glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography parameters in early glaucoma with different types of optic disc damage. Ophthalmology 2014;121:1990–1997.
28. Hwang YH, Jeong YC, Kim HK, Sohn YHJO. Macular ganglion cell analysis for early detection of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2014;121:1508–1515.
29. Jeoung JW, Choi YJ, Park KH, Kim DM. Macular ganglion cell imaging study: glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:4422–4429.
30. Mwanza J-C, Durbin MK, Budenz DL, Sayyad FE, Chang RT, Neelakantan A, et al. Glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness: comparison with nerve fiber layer and optic nerve head. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1151–1158.
31. Shin H-Y, Park H-YL, Jung K-I, Choi J-A, Park CK. Glaucoma diagnostic ability of ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness differs according to the location of visual field loss. Ophthalmology 2014;121:93–99.
32. Kim MJ, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Choi YJ, Kim DM. Topographic profiles of retinal nerve fiber layer defects affect the diagnostic performance of macular scans in preperimetric glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;55:2079–2087.
33. Kim MJ, Park KH, Yoo BW, Jeoung JW, Kim HC, Kim DM. Comparison of macular GCIPL and peripapillary RNFL deviation maps for detection of glaucomatous eye with localized RNFL defect. Acta Ophthalmol 2015;93:e22– e28.
34. Sung M-S, Yoon J-H, Park S-W. Diagnostic validity of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness deviation map algorithm using cirrus HD-OCT in preperimetric and early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2014;23:e144–e151.
35. Kim YK, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Inferior macular damage in glaucoma: its relationship to retinal nerve fiber layer defect in macular vulnerability zone. J Glaucoma 2017;26:126– 132.
36. Kim YK, Yoo BW, Kim HC, Park KH. Automated detection of hemifield difference across horizontal raphe on ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness map. Ophthalmology 2015;122:2252–2260.
37. Lee J, Kim YK, Ha A, Kim YW, Baek SU, Kim J-S, et al. Temporal raphe sign for discrimination of glaucoma from optic neuropathy in eyes with macular ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thinning. Ophthalmology 2019;126:1131–1139.
38. Ekici E, Moghimi S, Hou H, Proudfoot J, Zangwill LM, Do JL, et al. Central visual field defects in patients with distinct glaucomatous optic disc phenotypes. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;223:229–240.
39. Liu X, Lau A, Hou H, Moghimi S, Proudfoot JA, Chan E, et al. Progressive thinning of retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer in glaucoma eyes with disc hemorrhage. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2021:S2589– S4196(21)00031-4.
40. Miraftabi A, Amini N, Morales E, Henry S, Yu F, Afifi A, et al. Macular SD-OCT outcome measures: comparison of local structure-function relationships and dynamic range. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:4815–4823.
41. Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Medeiros FA, Belghith A. Estimating optical coherence tomography structural measurement floors to improve detection of progression in advanced glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2017;175:37–44.
42. Belghith A, Medeiros FA, Bowd C, Liebmann JM, Girkin CA, Weinreb RN, et al. Structural change can be detected in advanced-glaucoma eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:OCT511–OCT518.
43. Lavinsky F, Wu M, Schuman JS, Lucy KA, Liu M, Song Y, et al. Can macula and optic nerve head parameters detect glaucoma progression in eyes with advanced circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer damage? Ophthalmology 2018;125:1907–1912.
44. Miraftabi A, Amini N, Gornbein J, Henry S, Romero P, Coleman AL, et al. Local variability of macular thickness measurements with SD-OCT and influencing factors. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2016;5:5–5.
45. Pearce JG, Maddess T. Inter-visit test-retest variability of OCT in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:404–410.
46. Akashi A, Kanamori A, Ueda K, Inoue Y, Yamada Y, Nakamura M. The ability of SD-OCT to differentiate early glaucoma with high myopia from highly myopic controls and nonhighly myopic controls. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:6573–6580.
47. Kang SH, Hong SW, Im SK, Lee SH, Ahn MD. Effect of myopia on the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer measured by Cirrus HD optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:4075–4083.
48. Kim NR, Lim H, Kim JH, Rho SS, Seong GJ, Kim CY. Factors associated with false positives in retinal nerve fiber layer color codes from spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2011;118:1774–1781.
49. Akman A, Bayer A, Nouri-Mahdavi K. Optical coherence tomography in glaucoma: a practical guide. Springer, 2018.
50. Kim KE, Park KH. Macular imaging by optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2018;102:718–724.
51. Lee M-W, Park K-S, Lim H-B, Jo Y-J, Kim J-Y. Long-term reproducibility of GC-IPL thickness measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in eyes with high myopia. Sci Rep 2018;8:1–8.
52. Nakano N, Hangai M, Noma H, Nukada M, Mori S, Morooka S, et al. Macular imaging in highly myopic eyes with and without glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156:511–523.e6.
53. Shoji T, Nagaoka Y, Sato H, Chihara E. Impact of high myopia on the performance of SD-OCT parameters to detect glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2012;250:1843–1849.
54. Shoji T, Sato H, Ishida M, Takeuchi M, Chihara E. Assessment of Glaucomatous changes in subjects with high myopia using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:1098–1102.
55. Wang W-W, Wang H-Z, Liu J-R, Zhang X-F, Li M, Huo Y-J, et al. Diagnostic ability of ganglion cell complex thickness to detect glaucoma in high myopia eyes by Fourier domain optical coherence tomography. Int J Ophthalmol 2018;11:791.
56. Zhang Y, Wen W, Sun X. Comparison of several parameters in two optical coherence tomography systems for detecting glaucomatous defects in high myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:4910–4915.
57. Seol BR, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Glaucoma detection ability of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness in myopic preperimetric glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:8306–8313.
58. Choi YJ, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Kim DM. Glaucoma detection ability of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in high myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:2296–2304.
59. Kim YK, Yoo BW, Jeoung JW, Kim HC, Kim HJ, Park KH. Glaucoma-diagnostic ability of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness difference across temporal raphe in highly myopic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:5856–5863.
60. Akashi A, Kanamori A, Ueda K, Inoue Y, Yamada Y, Nakamura M. The ability of SD-OCT to differentiate early glaucoma with high myopia from highly myopic controls and nonhighly myopic controls. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:6573–6580.
61. Caprioli J. The importance of rates in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:191–192.
62. Hernández R, Burr J, Vale L, Azuara-Blanco A, Cook JA, Banister K. Monitoring ocular hypertension, how much and how often? A cost-effectiveness perspective. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:1263–1268.
63. Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation: a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1123–1129.e3.
64. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Demirel S. Factors predicting the rate of functional progression in early and suspected glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:3598–3604.
65. Jiang X, Varma R, Wu S, Torres M, Azen SP, Francis BA, et al. Baseline Risk factors that predict the development of open-angle glaucoma in a population: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2012;119:2245–2253.
66. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E, et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:48–56.
67. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Dong L, Yang Z. Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1965–1972.
68. Malihi M, Moura Filho ER, Hodge DO, Sit AJ. Long-term trends in glaucoma-related blindness in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Ophthalmology 2014;121:134–141.
69. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Corneal thickness measurements and frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities in ocular hypertensive eyes. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1903–1908.
70. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, Liu G, Li G, Gaasterland D, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1627–1635.
71. Sung KR, Cho JW, Lee S, Yun S-C, Choi J, Na JH, et al. Characteristics of visual field progression in medically treated normal-tension glaucoma patients with unstable ocular perfusion pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:737–743.
72. Shukla AG, Sirinek PE, De Moraes CG, Blumberg DM, Cioffi GA, Skaat A, et al. Disc hemorrhages are associated with the presence and progression of glaucomatous central visual field defects. J Glaucoma 2020;29:429–434.
73. Ha A, Kim YK, Kim J-S, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Temporal raphe sign in elderly patients with large optic disc cupping: its evaluation as a predictive factor for glaucoma conversion. Am J Opthalmol 2020;219:205–214.
74. Anraku A, Enomoto N, Takeyama A, Ito H, Tomita G. Baseline thickness of macular ganglion cell complex predicts progression of visual field loss. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014;252:109–115.
75. Zhang X, Loewen N, Tan O, Greenfield DS, Schuman JS, Varma R, et al. Predicting development of glaucomatous visual field conversion using baseline fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Opthalmol 2016;163:29–37.
76. Zhang X, Dastiridou A, Francis BA, Tan O, Varma R, Greenfield DS, et al. Baseline fourier-domain optical coherence tomography structural risk factors for visual field progression in the advanced imaging for glaucoma study. Am J Opthalmol 2016;172:94–103.
77. Hou HW, Lin C, Leung CK-S. Integrating macular ganglion cell inner plexiform layer and parapapillary retinal nerve fiber layer measurements to detect glaucoma progression. Ophthalmology 2018;125:822–831.
78. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Delving deep into rectifiers: surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis, 2015:1026–1034.
79. Medeiros FA. Deep learning in glaucoma: progress, but still lots to do. The Lancet Digital Health 2019;1:e151–e152.
80. Asaoka R, Murata H, Hirasawa K, Fujino Y, Matsuura M, Miki A, et al. Using deep learning and transfer learning to accurately diagnose early-onset glaucoma from macular optical coherence tomography images. Am J Ophthalmol 2019;198:136–145.
81. Russakoff DB, Mannil SS, Oakley JD, Ran Ran A, Cheung CY, Dasari S, et al. A 3D deep learning system for detecting referable glaucoma using full OCT macular cube scans. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2020;9:12.
82. Hashimoto Y, Asaoka R, Kiwaki T, Sugiura H, Asano S, Murata H, et al. Deep learning model to predict visual field in central 10° from optical coherence tomography measurement in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;4:507–513.
83. Xu L, Asaoka R, Kiwaki T, Murata H, Fujino Y, Matsuura M, et al. Predicting the glaucomatous central 10-degree visual field from optical coherence tomography using deep learning and tensor regression. Am J Ophthalmol 2020;218:304–313.
84. Asano S, Asaoka R, Murata H, Hashimoto Y, Miki A, Mori K, et al. Predicting the central 10 degrees visual field in glaucoma by applying a deep learning algorithm to optical coherence tomography images. Sci Rep 2021;11:1–10.
85. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Mohammadzadeh V, Rabiolo A, Edalati K, Caprioli J, Yousefi S. Prediction of visual field progression from OCT structural measures in moderate to advanced glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;226:172–181.
86. Awadalla MS, Fitzgerald J, Andrew NH, Zhou T, Marshall H, Qassim A, et al. Prevalence and type of artefact with spectral domain optical coherence tomography macular ganglion cell imaging in glaucoma surveillance. PLoS One 2018;13:e0206684.
87. Kim KE, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Kim DM, Kim SH. Diagnostic classification of macular ganglion cell and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: differentiation of false-positives from glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2015;122:502–510.
88. Mahmoudinezhad G, Mohammadzadeh V, Amini N, Toriz V, Pourhomayoun M, Heydarzadeh S, et al. Local Macular Thickness Relationships between 2 OCT Devices. 2021;4:209–215.
2. Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FAJJ. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA 2014;311:1901– 1911.
3. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:262–267.
4. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1989;107:453–464.
5. Quigley HA, Nickells RW, Kerrigan LA, et al. Retinal ganglion cell death in experimental glaucoma and after axotomy occurs by apoptosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:774–786.
6. Coleman AL. Glaucoma. The Lancet 1999;354:1803–1810.
7. Weinreb RN, Friedman DS, Fechtner RD, Cioffi GA, Coleman AL, Girkin CA, et al. Risk assessment in the management of patients with ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138:458–467.
8. Alencar LM, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Bowd C, Vizzeri G, Sample PA, et al. Agreement for detecting glaucoma progression with the GDx guided progression analysis, automated perimetry, and optic disc photography. Opthalmology 2010;117:462–470.
9. Alexandrescu C, Dascalu A, Panca A, Sescioreanu A, Mitulescu C, Ciuluvica R, et al. Confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma diagnosis and management. J Med Life 2010;3:229.
10. Andreou PA, Wickremasinghe SS, Asaria RH, Tay E, Franks WA. A comparison of HRT II and GDx imaging for glaucoma detection in a primary care eye clinic setting. Eye 2007;21:1050–1055.
11. Belghith A, Balasubramanian M, Bowd C, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM. A unified framework for glaucoma progression detection using Heidelberg Retina Tomograph images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2014;38:411–420.
12. Haleem MS, Han L, van Hemert J, Fleming A, Pasquale LR, Silva PS, et al. Regional image features model for automatic classification between normal and glaucoma in fundus and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) images. J Med Syst 2016;40:132.
13. Lin SC, Singh K, Jampel HD, Hodapp EA, Smith SD, Francis BA, et al. Optic nerve head and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1937–1949.
14. Sharma P, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Schuman JS. Diagnostic tools for glaucoma detection and management. Surv Ophthalmol 2008;53:S17–S32.
15. Stein JD, Talwar N, LaVerne AM, Nan B, Lichter PR. Trends in use of ancillary glaucoma tests for patients with open-angle glaucoma from 2001 to 2009. Ophthalmology 2012;119:748–758.
16. Drexler W, Fujimoto JG. State-of-the-art retinal optical coherence tomography. Prog Retin Eye Res 2008;27:45– 88.
17. Schuman JS, Hee MR, Arya AV, Pedut-Kloizman T, Puliafito CA, Fujimoto JG, et al. Optical coherence tomography: a new tool for glaucoma diagnosis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1995;6:89–95.
18. Mohammadzadeh V, Fatehi N, Yarmohammadi A, Woong Lee J, Sharifipour F, Daneshvar R, et al. Macular imaging with optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 2020;65:597–638.
19. Hood DC, De Moraes CG. Challenges to the common clinical paradigm for diagnosis of glaucomatous damage with OCT and visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2018;59:788–791.
20. Hood DC, De Moraes CG. Four questions for every clinician diagnosing and monitoring glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2018;27:657.
21. Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CGV, Liebmann JM, Ritch RJPir. Glaucomatous damage of the macula. Prog Retin Eye Res 2013;32:1–21.
22. Zangwill LM, Jain S, Racette L, Ernstrom KB, Bowd C, Medeiros FA, et al. The effect of disc size and severity of disease on the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph Glaucoma Probability Score. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:2653–2660.
23. Rao HL, Leite MT, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Alencar LM, Sample PA, et al. Effect of disease severity and optic disc size on diagnostic accuracy of RTVue spectral domain optical coherence tomograph in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:1290–1296.
24. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Influence of disease severity and optic disc size on the diagnostic performance of imaging instruments in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1008–1015.
25. Leite MT, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Rao HL, Alencar LM, Sample PA, et al. Effect of disease severity on the performance of cirrus spectral-domain oct for glaucoma diagnosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:4104–4109.
26. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Nowroozizadeh S, Nassiri N, Cirineo N, Knipping S, Giaconi J, et al. Macular ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer measurements by spectral domain optical coherence tomography for detection of early glaucoma and comparison to retinal nerve fiber layer measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156:1297–1307.e2.
27. Shin H-Y, Park H-YL, Jung Y, Choi J-A, Park CKJO. Glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography parameters in early glaucoma with different types of optic disc damage. Ophthalmology 2014;121:1990–1997.
28. Hwang YH, Jeong YC, Kim HK, Sohn YHJO. Macular ganglion cell analysis for early detection of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2014;121:1508–1515.
29. Jeoung JW, Choi YJ, Park KH, Kim DM. Macular ganglion cell imaging study: glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:4422–4429.
30. Mwanza J-C, Durbin MK, Budenz DL, Sayyad FE, Chang RT, Neelakantan A, et al. Glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness: comparison with nerve fiber layer and optic nerve head. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1151–1158.
31. Shin H-Y, Park H-YL, Jung K-I, Choi J-A, Park CK. Glaucoma diagnostic ability of ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness differs according to the location of visual field loss. Ophthalmology 2014;121:93–99.
32. Kim MJ, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Choi YJ, Kim DM. Topographic profiles of retinal nerve fiber layer defects affect the diagnostic performance of macular scans in preperimetric glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;55:2079–2087.
33. Kim MJ, Park KH, Yoo BW, Jeoung JW, Kim HC, Kim DM. Comparison of macular GCIPL and peripapillary RNFL deviation maps for detection of glaucomatous eye with localized RNFL defect. Acta Ophthalmol 2015;93:e22– e28.
34. Sung M-S, Yoon J-H, Park S-W. Diagnostic validity of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness deviation map algorithm using cirrus HD-OCT in preperimetric and early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2014;23:e144–e151.
35. Kim YK, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Inferior macular damage in glaucoma: its relationship to retinal nerve fiber layer defect in macular vulnerability zone. J Glaucoma 2017;26:126– 132.
36. Kim YK, Yoo BW, Kim HC, Park KH. Automated detection of hemifield difference across horizontal raphe on ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness map. Ophthalmology 2015;122:2252–2260.
37. Lee J, Kim YK, Ha A, Kim YW, Baek SU, Kim J-S, et al. Temporal raphe sign for discrimination of glaucoma from optic neuropathy in eyes with macular ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thinning. Ophthalmology 2019;126:1131–1139.
38. Ekici E, Moghimi S, Hou H, Proudfoot J, Zangwill LM, Do JL, et al. Central visual field defects in patients with distinct glaucomatous optic disc phenotypes. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;223:229–240.
39. Liu X, Lau A, Hou H, Moghimi S, Proudfoot JA, Chan E, et al. Progressive thinning of retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer in glaucoma eyes with disc hemorrhage. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2021:S2589– S4196(21)00031-4.
40. Miraftabi A, Amini N, Morales E, Henry S, Yu F, Afifi A, et al. Macular SD-OCT outcome measures: comparison of local structure-function relationships and dynamic range. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:4815–4823.
41. Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Medeiros FA, Belghith A. Estimating optical coherence tomography structural measurement floors to improve detection of progression in advanced glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2017;175:37–44.
42. Belghith A, Medeiros FA, Bowd C, Liebmann JM, Girkin CA, Weinreb RN, et al. Structural change can be detected in advanced-glaucoma eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:OCT511–OCT518.
43. Lavinsky F, Wu M, Schuman JS, Lucy KA, Liu M, Song Y, et al. Can macula and optic nerve head parameters detect glaucoma progression in eyes with advanced circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer damage? Ophthalmology 2018;125:1907–1912.
44. Miraftabi A, Amini N, Gornbein J, Henry S, Romero P, Coleman AL, et al. Local variability of macular thickness measurements with SD-OCT and influencing factors. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2016;5:5–5.
45. Pearce JG, Maddess T. Inter-visit test-retest variability of OCT in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:404–410.
46. Akashi A, Kanamori A, Ueda K, Inoue Y, Yamada Y, Nakamura M. The ability of SD-OCT to differentiate early glaucoma with high myopia from highly myopic controls and nonhighly myopic controls. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:6573–6580.
47. Kang SH, Hong SW, Im SK, Lee SH, Ahn MD. Effect of myopia on the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer measured by Cirrus HD optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:4075–4083.
48. Kim NR, Lim H, Kim JH, Rho SS, Seong GJ, Kim CY. Factors associated with false positives in retinal nerve fiber layer color codes from spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2011;118:1774–1781.
49. Akman A, Bayer A, Nouri-Mahdavi K. Optical coherence tomography in glaucoma: a practical guide. Springer, 2018.
50. Kim KE, Park KH. Macular imaging by optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2018;102:718–724.
51. Lee M-W, Park K-S, Lim H-B, Jo Y-J, Kim J-Y. Long-term reproducibility of GC-IPL thickness measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in eyes with high myopia. Sci Rep 2018;8:1–8.
52. Nakano N, Hangai M, Noma H, Nukada M, Mori S, Morooka S, et al. Macular imaging in highly myopic eyes with and without glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156:511–523.e6.
53. Shoji T, Nagaoka Y, Sato H, Chihara E. Impact of high myopia on the performance of SD-OCT parameters to detect glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2012;250:1843–1849.
54. Shoji T, Sato H, Ishida M, Takeuchi M, Chihara E. Assessment of Glaucomatous changes in subjects with high myopia using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:1098–1102.
55. Wang W-W, Wang H-Z, Liu J-R, Zhang X-F, Li M, Huo Y-J, et al. Diagnostic ability of ganglion cell complex thickness to detect glaucoma in high myopia eyes by Fourier domain optical coherence tomography. Int J Ophthalmol 2018;11:791.
56. Zhang Y, Wen W, Sun X. Comparison of several parameters in two optical coherence tomography systems for detecting glaucomatous defects in high myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:4910–4915.
57. Seol BR, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Glaucoma detection ability of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness in myopic preperimetric glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:8306–8313.
58. Choi YJ, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Kim DM. Glaucoma detection ability of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in high myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:2296–2304.
59. Kim YK, Yoo BW, Jeoung JW, Kim HC, Kim HJ, Park KH. Glaucoma-diagnostic ability of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness difference across temporal raphe in highly myopic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:5856–5863.
60. Akashi A, Kanamori A, Ueda K, Inoue Y, Yamada Y, Nakamura M. The ability of SD-OCT to differentiate early glaucoma with high myopia from highly myopic controls and nonhighly myopic controls. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:6573–6580.
61. Caprioli J. The importance of rates in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:191–192.
62. Hernández R, Burr J, Vale L, Azuara-Blanco A, Cook JA, Banister K. Monitoring ocular hypertension, how much and how often? A cost-effectiveness perspective. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:1263–1268.
63. Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation: a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1123–1129.e3.
64. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Demirel S. Factors predicting the rate of functional progression in early and suspected glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:3598–3604.
65. Jiang X, Varma R, Wu S, Torres M, Azen SP, Francis BA, et al. Baseline Risk factors that predict the development of open-angle glaucoma in a population: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2012;119:2245–2253.
66. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E, et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:48–56.
67. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Dong L, Yang Z. Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1965–1972.
68. Malihi M, Moura Filho ER, Hodge DO, Sit AJ. Long-term trends in glaucoma-related blindness in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Ophthalmology 2014;121:134–141.
69. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Corneal thickness measurements and frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities in ocular hypertensive eyes. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1903–1908.
70. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, Liu G, Li G, Gaasterland D, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1627–1635.
71. Sung KR, Cho JW, Lee S, Yun S-C, Choi J, Na JH, et al. Characteristics of visual field progression in medically treated normal-tension glaucoma patients with unstable ocular perfusion pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:737–743.
72. Shukla AG, Sirinek PE, De Moraes CG, Blumberg DM, Cioffi GA, Skaat A, et al. Disc hemorrhages are associated with the presence and progression of glaucomatous central visual field defects. J Glaucoma 2020;29:429–434.
73. Ha A, Kim YK, Kim J-S, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Temporal raphe sign in elderly patients with large optic disc cupping: its evaluation as a predictive factor for glaucoma conversion. Am J Opthalmol 2020;219:205–214.
74. Anraku A, Enomoto N, Takeyama A, Ito H, Tomita G. Baseline thickness of macular ganglion cell complex predicts progression of visual field loss. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014;252:109–115.
75. Zhang X, Loewen N, Tan O, Greenfield DS, Schuman JS, Varma R, et al. Predicting development of glaucomatous visual field conversion using baseline fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Opthalmol 2016;163:29–37.
76. Zhang X, Dastiridou A, Francis BA, Tan O, Varma R, Greenfield DS, et al. Baseline fourier-domain optical coherence tomography structural risk factors for visual field progression in the advanced imaging for glaucoma study. Am J Opthalmol 2016;172:94–103.
77. Hou HW, Lin C, Leung CK-S. Integrating macular ganglion cell inner plexiform layer and parapapillary retinal nerve fiber layer measurements to detect glaucoma progression. Ophthalmology 2018;125:822–831.
78. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Delving deep into rectifiers: surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis, 2015:1026–1034.
79. Medeiros FA. Deep learning in glaucoma: progress, but still lots to do. The Lancet Digital Health 2019;1:e151–e152.
80. Asaoka R, Murata H, Hirasawa K, Fujino Y, Matsuura M, Miki A, et al. Using deep learning and transfer learning to accurately diagnose early-onset glaucoma from macular optical coherence tomography images. Am J Ophthalmol 2019;198:136–145.
81. Russakoff DB, Mannil SS, Oakley JD, Ran Ran A, Cheung CY, Dasari S, et al. A 3D deep learning system for detecting referable glaucoma using full OCT macular cube scans. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2020;9:12.
82. Hashimoto Y, Asaoka R, Kiwaki T, Sugiura H, Asano S, Murata H, et al. Deep learning model to predict visual field in central 10° from optical coherence tomography measurement in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;4:507–513.
83. Xu L, Asaoka R, Kiwaki T, Murata H, Fujino Y, Matsuura M, et al. Predicting the glaucomatous central 10-degree visual field from optical coherence tomography using deep learning and tensor regression. Am J Ophthalmol 2020;218:304–313.
84. Asano S, Asaoka R, Murata H, Hashimoto Y, Miki A, Mori K, et al. Predicting the central 10 degrees visual field in glaucoma by applying a deep learning algorithm to optical coherence tomography images. Sci Rep 2021;11:1–10.
85. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Mohammadzadeh V, Rabiolo A, Edalati K, Caprioli J, Yousefi S. Prediction of visual field progression from OCT structural measures in moderate to advanced glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;226:172–181.
86. Awadalla MS, Fitzgerald J, Andrew NH, Zhou T, Marshall H, Qassim A, et al. Prevalence and type of artefact with spectral domain optical coherence tomography macular ganglion cell imaging in glaucoma surveillance. PLoS One 2018;13:e0206684.
87. Kim KE, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Kim DM, Kim SH. Diagnostic classification of macular ganglion cell and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: differentiation of false-positives from glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2015;122:502–510.
88. Mahmoudinezhad G, Mohammadzadeh V, Amini N, Toriz V, Pourhomayoun M, Heydarzadeh S, et al. Local Macular Thickness Relationships between 2 OCT Devices. 2021;4:209–215.