Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess inter-rater reliability in the detection of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) changes using wide-field optical coherence tomography angiography (WF-OCTA) versus fluorescein angiography (FA). METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included patients with severe nonproliferative and PDR. Images were acquired with 12 × 12 mm WF-OCTA and FA with a 55° lens. Images were cropped to represent the exact same field of view. Qualitative (detection of neovascularization at the disc [NVD] and elsewhere [NVE], enlarged foveal avascular zone [FAZ], vitreous hemorrhage [VH]) and quantitative analyses (FAZ area, horizontal, vertical, and maximum FAZ diameter) were performed by 2 masked graders using ImageJ. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using unweighted Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) for qualitative analyses and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for quantitative analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-three eyes of 17 patients were included. Inter-rater reliability was higher for FA than for WF-OCTA in qualitative analyses: κ values were 0.65 and 0.78 for detection of extended FAZ, 0.83 and 1.0 for NVD, 0.78 and 1.0 for NVE, and 0.19 and 1 for VH for WF-OCTA and FA, respectively. In contrast, inter-rater reliability was higher for WF-OCTA than for FA in the quantitative analyses: ICC values were 0.94 and 0.76 for FAZ size, 0.92 and 0.79 for horizontal FAZ diameter, 0.82 and 0.72 for vertical FAZ diameter, and 0.88 and 0.82 for maximum FAZ diameter on WF-OCTA and FA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater reliability of FA is superior to WF-OCTA for qualitative analyses whereas inter-rater reliability of WF-OCTA is superior to FA for quantitative analyses. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The study highlights the specific merits of both imaging modalities in terms of reliability. FA should be preferred for qualitative parameters, whereas WF-OCTA should be preferred for quantitative parameters.