Allingham Michael J, Mukherjee Dibyendu, Lally Erin B, Rabbani Hossein, Mettu Priyatham S, Cousins Scott W, Farsiu Sina
Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA ; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Pratt School of Engineering, Durham, NC, USA.
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017 Mar 21;6(2):7. doi: 10.1167/tvst.6.2.7. eCollection 2017 Mar.
We use semiautomated segmentation of fluorescein angiography (FA) to determine whether anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) differentially affects microaneurysm (MA)-associated leakage, termed focal leakage, versus non-MA-associated leakage, termed diffuse leakage.
We performed a retrospective study of 29 subjects treated with at least three consecutive injections of anti-VEGF agents for DME (mean 4.6 injections; range, 3-10) who underwent Heidelberg FA before and after anti-VEGF therapy. Inclusion criteria were macula center involving DME and at least 3 consecutive anti-VEGF injections. Exclusion criteria were macular edema due to cause besides DME, anti-VEGF within 3 months of initial FA, concurrent treatment for DME besides anti-VEGF, and macular photocoagulation within 1 year. At each time point, total leakage was semiautomatically segmented using a modified version of our previously published software. Microaneurysms were identified by an expert grader and leakage within a 117 μm radius of each MA was classified as focal leakage. Remaining leakage was classified as diffuse leakage. The absolute and percent changes in total, diffuse, and focal leakage were calculated for each subject.
Mean pretreatment total leakage was 8.2 mm and decreased by a mean of 40.1% ( < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval [CI], [-28.6, -52.5]) following treatment. Diffuse leakage decreased by a mean of 45.5% ( < 0.0001; 95% CI, [-31.3, -59.6]) while focal leakage decreased by 17.9% ( = 0.02; 95% CI, [-1.0, -34.8]). The difference in treatment response between focal and diffuse leakage was statistically significant ( = 0.01).
Anti-VEGF treatment for DME results in decreased diffuse leakage but had relatively little effect on focal leakage as assessed by FA. This suggests that diffuse leakage may be a marker of VEGF-mediated pathobiology. Patients with predominantly focal leakage may be less responsive to anti-VEGF therapy.
Fluorescein angiography can define focal and diffuse subtypes of diabetic macular edema and these may respond differently to anti-VEGF treatment.
我们使用荧光素血管造影(FA)的半自动分割技术来确定抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(DME)是否对与微动脉瘤(MA)相关的渗漏(称为局灶性渗漏)和与非MA相关的渗漏(称为弥漫性渗漏)有不同影响。
我们对29例接受至少连续三次抗VEGF药物注射治疗DME的患者进行了回顾性研究(平均注射4.6次;范围3 - 10次),这些患者在抗VEGF治疗前后均接受了海德堡FA检查。纳入标准为累及黄斑中心的DME且至少连续3次抗VEGF注射。排除标准为除DME外其他原因引起的黄斑水肿、首次FA检查前3个月内使用过抗VEGF、除抗VEGF外同时进行的DME治疗以及1年内进行过黄斑光凝治疗。在每个时间点,使用我们之前发表软件的修改版本对总渗漏进行半自动分割。由专家分级员识别微动脉瘤,每个MA半径117μm范围内的渗漏被分类为局灶性渗漏。其余渗漏被分类为弥漫性渗漏。计算每个受试者总渗漏、弥漫性渗漏和局灶性渗漏的绝对变化和百分比变化。
治疗前平均总渗漏为8.2mm,治疗后平均减少40.1%(<0.0001;95%置信区间[CI],[-28.6,-52.5])。弥漫性渗漏平均减少45.5%(<0.0001;95%CI,[-31.3,-59.6]),而局灶性渗漏减少17.9%(=0.02;95%CI,[-1.0,-34.8])。局灶性渗漏和弥漫性渗漏的治疗反应差异具有统计学意义(=0.01)。
通过FA评估,抗VEGF治疗DME可使弥漫性渗漏减少,但对局灶性渗漏影响相对较小。这表明弥漫性渗漏可能是VEGF介导的病理生物学标志物。以局灶性渗漏为主的患者可能对抗VEGF治疗反应较差。
荧光素血管造影可定义糖尿病性黄斑水肿的局灶性和弥漫性亚型,且这些亚型对抗VEGF治疗的反应可能不同。