Suppr超能文献

使用立体投影超广角成像和光学相干断层扫描测量的小脉络膜痣的设备间尺寸差异。

Inter-device size variation of small choroidal nevi measured using stereographic projection ultra-widefield imaging and optical coherence tomography.

作者信息

Maloca Peter, Gyger Cyrill, Schoetzau Andreas, Hasler Pascal W

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, OCTlab, University of Basel, Mittlere Strasse 91, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland.

出版信息

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016 Apr;254(4):797-808. doi: 10.1007/s00417-015-3209-6. Epub 2015 Nov 4.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to compare the tumor sizes of small choroidal nevi using ultra-widefield imaging (UWF) and different optical coherence tomography systems.

METHODS

Thirteen choroidal nevi were measured using automatic and manual segmentation techniques, including enhanced depth imaging spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (EDI-SDOCT) and 1050 nm swept source OCT (SSOCT), to compare to measurements obtained using the Optos projection ultra-widefield fundus (UWF) imaging technique. Segmentation artifacts were evaluated for all 13 cases, alongside an additional 12 choroidal nevi, using SSOCT.

RESULTS

In tumor eyes, segmentation artifacts for the choroid-sclera interface were found in 42 % of SSOCT scans. EDI-SDOCT can underestimate tumor dimensions and differs up to -8.41 % compared to UWF imaging and by 1.25 % compared to SSOCT cases. The horizontal length of the nevi showed an average difference between EDI-SDOCT and SSOCT of ± 9.38 %. Measured markers showed an average difference in length of ± 12.51 %. The average tumor thickness showed a difference of ± 11.47 %. Comparisons between EDI-SDOCT/UWF, SSOCT/EDI-SDOCT, and marker EDI-SDOCT/SSOCT showed significant mean differences of -122 μm (CI: -212 to -31 μm, p = 0.013), 134 μm (CI: 65-203 μm, p = 0.0012), and -193 μm (CI: -345 to -41 μm, p = 0.017), whereas SSOCT/UWF showed no significant difference with a measurement of 13 μm (CI: -69-95 μm, p = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Automatic segmentation of nevi requires much caution, because a choroidal tumor can trigger many artifacts. It would be beneficial to monitor choroidal nevi using the same type of OCT technology, because a tumor is displayed differently.

摘要

目的

我们的目的是比较使用超广角成像(UWF)和不同光学相干断层扫描系统测量的小脉络膜痣的肿瘤大小。

方法

使用自动和手动分割技术测量13个脉络膜痣,包括增强深度成像光谱域光学相干断层扫描(EDI-SDOCT)和1050nm扫频源光学相干断层扫描(SSOCT),并与使用Optos投影超广角眼底(UWF)成像技术获得的测量结果进行比较。使用SSOCT对全部13例以及另外12个脉络膜痣评估分割伪像。

结果

在患肿瘤眼中,42%的SSOCT扫描发现脉络膜-巩膜界面存在分割伪像。EDI-SDOCT会低估肿瘤尺寸,与UWF成像相比差异高达-8.41%,与SSOCT病例相比差异为1.25%。痣的水平长度在EDI-SDOCT和SSOCT之间平均差异为±9.38%。测量标记物的长度平均差异为±12.51%。平均肿瘤厚度差异为±11.47%。EDI-SDOCT/UWF、SSOCT/EDI-SDOCT和标记物EDI-SDOCT/SSOCT之间的比较显示平均差异显著,分别为-122μm(CI:-212至-31μm,p = 0.013)、134μm(CI:65 - 203μm,p = 0.0012)和-193μm(CI:-345至-41μm,p = 0.017),而SSOCT/UWF差异不显著,测量值为13μm(CI:-69 - 95μm,p = 0.74)。

结论

痣的自动分割需要格外谨慎,因为脉络膜肿瘤会引发许多伪像。使用同类型的光学相干断层扫描技术监测脉络膜痣会有益处,因为肿瘤的显示方式有所不同。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验