Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Treatment decisions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) are mainly based on subjective evaluation of OCT. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to provide a comparison of qualitative and quantitative differences between OCT devices in a systematic manner. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: One hundred sixty OCT volumes, 40 eyes of 40 patients with nAMD. METHODS: Patients from clinical practice were imaged with 4 different OCT devices during one visit: (1) Spectralis Heidelberg; (2) Cirrus; (3) Topcon Maestro2; and (4) Topcon Triton. Intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED) were manually annotated in all cubes by trained human experts to establish fluid measurements based on expert-reader annotations. Intraretinal fluid, SRF, and PED volume were quantified in nanoliters (nL). Bland-Altman plots were created to analyze the agreement of measurements in the central 1 and 6 mm. The Friedman test was performed to test for significant differences in the central 1, 3, and 6 mm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraretinal fluid, SRF, and PED volume. RESULTS: In the central 6 mm, there was a trend toward higher IRF and PED volumes in Spectralis images compared with the other devices and no differences in SRF volume. In the central 1 mm, the standard deviation of the differences ranged from ± 3 nL to ± 6 nL for IRF, from ± 3 nL to ± 4 nL for SRF, and from ± 7 nL to ± 10 nL for PED in all pairwise comparisons. Manually annotated IRF and SRF volumes showed no significant differences in the central 1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid volume quantification achieved excellent reliability in all 3 retinal compartments on images obtained from 4 OCT devices, particularly for clinically relevant IRF and SRF values. Although fluid volume quantification is reliable in all 4 OCT devices, switching OCT devices might lead to deviating fluid volume measurements with higher agreement in the central 1 mm compared with the central 6 mm, with highest agreement for SRF volume in the central 1 mm. Understanding device-dependent differences is essential for expanding the interpretation and implementation of pixel-wise fluid volume measurements in clinical practice and in clinical trials. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.