Comparison of Cirrus OCT and Stratus OCT on the Ability to Detect Localized Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Defects in Preperimetric Glaucoma

PURPOSE. To evaluate and compare the diagnostic ability of Cirrus and Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect localized retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) defects in patients with normal standard automated perimetry. METHODS. This study included 55 eyes of 55 subjects with preperimetric localized RNFL defects and 55 normal control eyes of 55 age-and sex-matched subjects. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were calculated and compared. Based on the internal normative database from each device, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting preperimetric localized RNFL defects were calculated. RESULTS. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUROCs for the best parameters from the Cirrus OCT (inferior thickness, AUROC = 0.728) and Stratus OCT (7 o`clock sector, AUROC = 0.760; P = 0.477). The sensitivity of the Cirrus OCT parameters ranged from 21.0% to 87.1% and that of the Stratus OCT parameters ranged from 4.8% to 30.7%, with the criterion of abnormal at the 5% level. Based on the normative database, the highest Cirrus OCT sensitivity was obtained with the deviation-from-normal map (sensitivity 87.1% and specificity 61.8%), and the highest Stratus OCT sensitivity was obtained with the TSNIT thickness graph (sensitivity 30.7% and specificity 85.5%). CONCLUSIONS. There were no significant differences between the AUROCs for Cirrus and Stratus OCT, indicating that the two devices have similar diagnostic potentials in preperimetric glaucoma. After comparison with their normative databases, Cirrus OCT had generally higher sensitivities; however, this was largely at the cost of lower specificities than Stratus OCT. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51: 938-945) DOI:10.1167/iovs.08-3335Jeoung JW, 2008, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V115, P2132, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.024Jeoung JW, 2008, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V49, P1753, DOI 10.1167/iovs.07-1408Hougaard JL, 2007, J GLAUCOMA, V16, P302Kim TW, 2007, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V48, P1635, DOI 10.1167/iovs.06-0800Medeiros FA, 2007, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V91, P273, DOI 10.1136/bjo.2006.107409van Velthoven MEJ, 2007, PROG RETIN EYE RES, V26, P57, DOI 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2006.10.002Hwang JM, 2006, J GLAUCOMA, V15, P223Chen TC, 2005, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V123, P1715Jeoung JW, 2005, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V112, P2157, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.07.012Schmidt-Erfurth U, 2005, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V46, P3393, DOI 10.1167/iovs.05-0370Budenz DL, 2005, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V112, P3, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.039Medeiros FA, 2004, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V122, P827Jaffe GJ, 2004, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V137, P156, DOI 10.1016/S0002-9394(03)00792-XKanamori A, 2003, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V135, P513Guedes V, 2003, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V110, P177Williams ZY, 2002, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V134, P538Greaney MJ, 2002, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V43, P140GREENFIELD DS, 2002, CURR OPIN OPHTHALMOL, V13, P68Bowd C, 2001, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V42, P1993Zangwill LM, 2001, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V119, P985Blumenthal EZ, 2000, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V107, P2278Schuman JS, 1996, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V103, P1889JAESCHKE R, 1994, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V271, P703TUULONEN A, 1993, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V100, P587TUULONEN A, 1991, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V111, P485SIMEL DL, 1991, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V44, P763SOMMER A, 1991, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V109, P77DELONG ER, 1988, BIOMETRICS, V44, P837RADACK KL, 1986, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V110, P689SOMMER A, 1977, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V95, P2149HOYT WF, 1973, INVEST OPHTH VISUAL, V12, P8141