@article {1347447,
	title = {Diagnostic Capability of Three-Dimensional Macular Parameters for Glaucoma Using Optical Coherence Tomography Volume Scans},
	journal = {Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci},
	volume = {59},
	number = {12},
	year = {2018},
	month = {2018 Oct 01},
	pages = {4998-5010},
	abstract = {Purpose: To compare the diagnostic capability of three-dimensional (3D) macular parameters against traditional two-dimensional (2D) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. To determine if manual correction and interpolation of B-scans improve the ability of 3D macular parameters to diagnose glaucoma. Methods: A total of 101 open angle glaucoma patients (29 with early glaucoma) and 57 healthy subjects had peripapillary 2D RNFL thickness and 3D macular volume scans. Four parameters were calculated for six different-sized annuli: total macular thickness (M-thickness), total macular volume (M-volume), ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness, and GCC volume of the innermost 3 macular layers (retinal nerve fiber layer + ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer). All macular parameters were calculated with and without correction and interpolation of frames with artifacts. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were calculated for all the parameters. Results: The 3D macular parameter with the best diagnostic performance was GCC-volume-34, with an inner diameter of 3 mm and an outer of 4 mm. The AUROC for RNFL thickness and GCC-volume-34 were statistically similar for all regions (global: RNFL thickness 0.956, GCC-volume-34 0.939, P value = 0.3827), except for the temporal GCC-volume-34, which was significantly better than temporal RNFL thickness (P value = 0.0067). Correction of artifacts did not significantly change the AUROC of macular parameters (P values between 0.8452 and 1.0000). Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of best macular parameters (GCC-volume-34 and GCC-thickness-34) were similar to or better than 2D RNFL thickness. Manual correction of artifacts with data interpolation is unnecessary in the clinical setting.},
	issn = {1552-5783},
	doi = {10.1167/iovs.18-23813},
	author = {Verticchio Vercellin, Alice C and Jassim, Firas and Poon, Linda Yi-Chieh and Tsikata, Edem and Braaf, Boy and Shah, Sneha and Ben-David, Geulah and Shieh, Eric and Lee, Ramon and Simavli, Huseyin and Que, Christian J and Papadogeorgou, Georgia and Guo, Rong and Vakoc, Benjamin J and Bouma, Brett E and de Boer, Johannes F and Chen, Teresa C}
}
