糖尿病性黄斑水肿或视网膜静脉闭塞继发黄斑水肿患者在现实条件下的 SD-OCT 成像数据解读与标准化阅片中心的分析对比:ORCA 研究 24 个月的随访结果

Georg Spital, Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg, Bettina Müller, Erika Liczenczias, Petrus Chang, Britta Heimes-Bussmann, Focke Ziemssen, Sandra Liakopoulos
{"title":"糖尿病性黄斑水肿或视网膜静脉闭塞继发黄斑水肿患者在现实条件下的 SD-OCT 成像数据解读与标准化阅片中心的分析对比:ORCA 研究 24 个月的随访结果","authors":"Georg Spital, Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg, Bettina Müller, Erika Liczenczias, Petrus Chang, Britta Heimes-Bussmann, Focke Ziemssen, Sandra Liakopoulos","doi":"10.1007/s00417-024-06579-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>As part of the prospective, non-interventional OCEAN study, the ORCA module evaluated physicians’ spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) image interpretations in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) or macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and/or subretinal fluid (SRF) was evaluated independently by physicians and reading centres (RCs) on 1612 SD-OCT scans of 133 patients diagnosed with either DME or ME secondary to RVO. Agreement between physicians and RCs was calculated for both cohorts individually and as a combined ME cohort. Physicians’ treatment decisions were analysed related to the results of the OCT-evaluations.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>For the combined ME cohort, presence of IRF/SRF was recorded by RCs in 792/1612 (49.1%) visits and by physicians in 852/1612 (52.9%) visits, with an agreement regarding presence or absence of foveal fluid in 70.4% of cases. In 64.4% (510/792) of visits with RC-detected foveal IRF and/or SRF no injection was given. In 30.3% of these visits with foveal fluid no reason was identified for a ‘watch and wait’ approach indicating possible undertreatment. BCVA deterioration was seen in a quarter of these eyes at the following visit.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Despite good agreement between physicians and RCs to recognize SRF and IRF, our data indicate that omitting injections despite foveal involvement of fluid is frequent in routine clinical practice. This may put patients at risk of undertreatment, which may negatively impact real-life BCVA outcomes.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Trial registration</h3><p>www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02194803.</p>","PeriodicalId":12748,"journal":{"name":"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpretation of SD-OCT imaging data in real-life conditions versus standardized reading centre analysis in eyes with diabetic macular oedema or macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: 24-month follow-up of the ORCA study\",\"authors\":\"Georg Spital, Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg, Bettina Müller, Erika Liczenczias, Petrus Chang, Britta Heimes-Bussmann, Focke Ziemssen, Sandra Liakopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00417-024-06579-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>As part of the prospective, non-interventional OCEAN study, the ORCA module evaluated physicians’ spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) image interpretations in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) or macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and/or subretinal fluid (SRF) was evaluated independently by physicians and reading centres (RCs) on 1612 SD-OCT scans of 133 patients diagnosed with either DME or ME secondary to RVO. Agreement between physicians and RCs was calculated for both cohorts individually and as a combined ME cohort. Physicians’ treatment decisions were analysed related to the results of the OCT-evaluations.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>For the combined ME cohort, presence of IRF/SRF was recorded by RCs in 792/1612 (49.1%) visits and by physicians in 852/1612 (52.9%) visits, with an agreement regarding presence or absence of foveal fluid in 70.4% of cases. In 64.4% (510/792) of visits with RC-detected foveal IRF and/or SRF no injection was given. In 30.3% of these visits with foveal fluid no reason was identified for a ‘watch and wait’ approach indicating possible undertreatment. BCVA deterioration was seen in a quarter of these eyes at the following visit.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>Despite good agreement between physicians and RCs to recognize SRF and IRF, our data indicate that omitting injections despite foveal involvement of fluid is frequent in routine clinical practice. This may put patients at risk of undertreatment, which may negatively impact real-life BCVA outcomes.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Trial registration</h3><p>www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02194803.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06579-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06579-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 作为前瞻性、非干预性 OCEAN 研究的一部分,ORCA 模块评估了医生在治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿 (DME) 或视网膜静脉闭塞 (RVO) 继发性黄斑水肿 (ME) 时对光谱域光学相干断层扫描 (SD-OCT) 图像的判读。方法由医生和阅片中心(RC)对 133 名被诊断为继发于 RVO 的 DME 或 ME 患者的 1612 张 SD-OCT 扫描图像上的视网膜内积液(IRF)和/或视网膜下积液(SRF)进行独立评估。医生和阅片中心之间的一致性是根据两组患者的个体情况和合并的 ME 患者情况计算得出的。结果在合并的 ME 队列中,RC 在 792/1612 次(49.1%)就诊中记录了是否存在 IRF/SRF,医生在 852/1612 次(52.9%)就诊中记录了是否存在 IRF/SRF,70.4% 的病例就是否存在眼窝积液达成了一致。64.4%(510/792)的就诊者在 RC 检测到眼窝 IRF 和/或 SRF 时未进行注射。在这些有眼窝积液的就诊病例中,有 30.3% 的病例未找到 "观察和等待 "的原因,这表明可能存在治疗不当的情况。结论尽管医生和注册眼科医师在识别 SRF 和 IRF 方面达成了良好的共识,但我们的数据表明,在常规临床实践中,尽管有眼窝积液,但仍经常出现漏注的情况。这可能会使患者面临治疗不足的风险,从而对实际BCVA结果产生负面影响。试验注册www.clinicaltrials.gov,标识符为NCT02194803。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Interpretation of SD-OCT imaging data in real-life conditions versus standardized reading centre analysis in eyes with diabetic macular oedema or macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: 24-month follow-up of the ORCA study

Purpose

As part of the prospective, non-interventional OCEAN study, the ORCA module evaluated physicians’ spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) image interpretations in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) or macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Methods

Presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and/or subretinal fluid (SRF) was evaluated independently by physicians and reading centres (RCs) on 1612 SD-OCT scans of 133 patients diagnosed with either DME or ME secondary to RVO. Agreement between physicians and RCs was calculated for both cohorts individually and as a combined ME cohort. Physicians’ treatment decisions were analysed related to the results of the OCT-evaluations.

Results

For the combined ME cohort, presence of IRF/SRF was recorded by RCs in 792/1612 (49.1%) visits and by physicians in 852/1612 (52.9%) visits, with an agreement regarding presence or absence of foveal fluid in 70.4% of cases. In 64.4% (510/792) of visits with RC-detected foveal IRF and/or SRF no injection was given. In 30.3% of these visits with foveal fluid no reason was identified for a ‘watch and wait’ approach indicating possible undertreatment. BCVA deterioration was seen in a quarter of these eyes at the following visit.

Conclusion

Despite good agreement between physicians and RCs to recognize SRF and IRF, our data indicate that omitting injections despite foveal involvement of fluid is frequent in routine clinical practice. This may put patients at risk of undertreatment, which may negatively impact real-life BCVA outcomes.

Trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02194803.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digital health and wearable devices for retinal disease monitoring Safety and efficacy of laser trabeculoplasty compared to drug therapy for the management of open-angle glaucoma: systematic review and meta-analysis study Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and retinal pseudodrusen in an elderly population. The ural very old study Interpretation of SD-OCT imaging data in real-life conditions versus standardized reading centre analysis in eyes with diabetic macular oedema or macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: 24-month follow-up of the ORCA study Freiburg vision test (FrACT): optimal number of trials?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1