0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Clinical Sciences |

Optical Coherence Tomography Longitudinal Evaluation of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Glaucoma FREE

Gadi Wollstein, MD; Joel S. Schuman, MD; Lori L. Price, MS; Ali Aydin, MD; Paul C. Stark, ScD; Ellen Hertzmark, MA; Edward Lai, MD; Hiroshi Ishikawa, MD; Cynthia Mattox, MD; James G. Fujimoto, PhD; Lelia A. Paunescu, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: New England Eye Center (Drs Wollstein, Schuman, Aydin, Lai, Ishikawa, Mattox, and Paunescu) and Biostatistics Research Center, Division of Clinical Care Research (Ms Price and Dr Stark), Tufts–New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass; UPMC Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa (Drs Wollstein, Schuman, and Ishikawa); Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (Ms Hertzmark); and Department of Electrical Engineering and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (Dr Fujimoto).


Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(4):464-470. doi:10.1001/archopht.123.4.464.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives  To longitudinally evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurements and to compare these measurements across time with clinical status and automated perimetry.

Methods  Retrospective evaluation of 64 eyes (37 patients) of glaucoma suspects or patients with glaucoma participating in a prospective longitudinal study. All participants underwent comprehensive clinical assessment, visual field (VF) testing, and OCT every 6 months. Field progression was defined as a reproducible decline of at least 2 dB in VF mean deviation from baseline. Progression of OCT was defined as reproducible mean retinal nerve fiber layer thinning of at least 20 μm.

Results  Each patient had a median of 5 usable OCT scans at median follow-up of 4.7 years. The difference in the linear regression slopes of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness between glaucoma suspects and patients with glaucoma was nonsignificant for all variables; however, Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis demonstrated a higher progression rate by OCT vs VF. Sixty-six percent of eyes were stable throughout follow-up, whereas 22% progressed by OCT alone, 9% by VF mean deviation alone, and 3% by VF and OCT.

Conclusions  A greater likelihood of glaucomatous progression was identified by OCT vs automated perimetry. This might reflect OCT hypersensitivity or true damage identified by OCT before detection by conventional methods.

Figures in this Article

Glaucoma is characterized by a combination of structural changes in the retina and optic nerve head (ONH) and functional perimetric damage. Previous studies110 have indicated that structural changes in patients with glaucoma, as detected by optic disc and/or nerve fiber layer assessment, precede functional changes detected by perimetry. In recent years, glaucoma imaging modalities were incorporated into the management of patients with glaucoma. These imaging modalities were designed to detect morphologic glaucomatous abnormalities, and they might improve the ability to detect longitudinal changes using quantitative measurements. Several cross-sectional studies1125 have demonstrated the capability of these modalities to identify glaucomatous changes. Limited information, however, is available regarding their use for longitudinal glaucoma assessment.9

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a high-resolution imaging device capable of obtaining reproducible retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurements.2628 This device has been shown to be a valuable tool for glaucoma assessment, and cross-sectional studies11,18,2935 have shown that it allows differentiation between healthy individuals and patients with glaucoma. The purpose of this study is to longitudinally evaluate OCT circumpapillary RNFL measurements compared with standard clinical assessment and automated perimetry.

Data for this study were retrospectively collected from a prospective longitudinal study carried out in the glaucoma service at the New England Eye Center, Tufts–New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 2001. All individuals who attended the glaucoma service, who were willing to participate, and who qualified according to the criteria in the following paragraph were included in the study. Institutional review board and ethics committee approval from Tufts–New England Medical Center was obtained for the study, and all participants gave their approval to participate. This study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Patients were included in the study according to the following inclusion criteria: best-corrected visual acuity of 20/60 or, better, refractive error of +3.00 to –6.00 diopters, and at least 5 reliable visual field (VF) tests and 5 good-quality OCT scans. The exclusion criteria consisted of a history of diabetes mellitus and signs of posterior pole pathologic abnormalities other than those attributed to glaucoma or substantial media opacity in which the fundus was not visible. Eyes that underwent cataract extraction or any other intraocular surgery during follow-up were excluded from the study.

STUDY PROTOCOL

All participants underwent a thorough baseline ophthalmic evaluation, including medical history, intraocular pressure measurement, undilated and dilated biomicroscopy, VF testing, and OCT scanning. Both eyes were included in the study if they were found to be eligible. All participants were scheduled for follow-up assessments every 6 months, unless additional visits were medically indicated. Each visit included a full ophthalmic evaluation, VF testing, and OCT scanning.

CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS

The study population included glaucoma suspects and patients with glaucoma. Suspected eyes were defined as those with no history of retinal pathologic abnormalities, laser therapy, or intraocular surgery. An intraocular pressure of 22 to 30 mm Hg or asymmetrical ONH cupping (difference in vertical cup-disc ratio >0.2 between eyes) or an abnormal-appearing ONH, all in the presence of normal VF test results, were also included in the definition. This group contained suspected eyes with different causes, such as ocular hypertension, increased cupping (vertical cup-disc ratio >0.6), asymmetrical cupping, and a family history of glaucoma. Glaucomatous eyes were defined as those with at least 1 of the following: (1) a glaucomatous VF defect, (2) intraocular pressure greater than 35 mm Hg despite a full VF in the presence of large ONH cupping, or (3) a nerve fiber layer defect on stereobiomicroscopy.

VISUAL FIELD TESTING

All patients underwent Humphrey full-threshold 24-2 achromatic perimetry or Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm standard 24-2 perimetry. A reliable VF test was defined as having fewer than 30% fixation losses and false-positive or false-negative responses. Normal VF test results were defined as having no clusters of 3 or more adjacent points depressed more than 5 dB or 2 adjacent points depressed more than 10 dB in the pattern deviation plot. An abnormal VF test result was defined as a cluster of abnormal points as defined previously herein.

Two glaucoma experts (G.W. and J.S.S.) independently assessed the VF test results to determine progression between consecutive visits and between the first and last visits. The graders were masked to each other and to any clinical information. Printouts of the VF were organized in chronological order, with masking of the patient identification and age and the test date. The graders had access to the entire set of VFs for each eye before making their assessment, and they were asked to determine VF deterioration between consecutive visits. Consensus between the graders was required in cases of disagreement.

Eyes were defined for the analysis as VF progressors by subjective assessment when both graders or the consensus agreement labeled reproducible deterioration in 2 of 3 consecutive follow-up VFs. All other eyes were classified as VF nonprogressors. Eyes were defined as VF progressors by mean deviation (MD) when VF-MD decreased by 2 dB from the baseline value in 2 of 3 consecutive follow-up visits. A third method of VF assessment was performed using the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) scoring system, in which VF progression was defined according to the AGIS criteria as a reproducible increase by 4 points from the baseline level in 3 consecutive follow-up visits.36 Variables used for the analysis were VF-MD, pattern standard deviation (VF-PSD), subjective assessment of the VF, and AGIS scoring. For eyes that were tested by the full-threshold and Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm protocols during follow-up, the global VF indices were treated as a continuum. Switching from full-threshold to Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm standard perimetry has been found to affect the threshold sensitivity level. However, previous studies37,38 could not find a significant effect on VF-MD, and, therefore, this variable was used for the statistical analysis.

OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY

Optical coherence tomography is the optical equivalent of B-scan ultrasound, in which the delay of the backscattered light from the various components of the scanned tissue enables differentiation of various tissue layers. Detailed descriptions of OCT have been published previously.26,39,40 Optical coherence tomography has been shown to obtain accurate and reproducible RNFL and retinal thickness measurements.2628

All OCT scans in this study were performed using a prototype device with a reported resolution of 10 μm.26 This device acquired 100 circumpapillary measuring points in approximately 2.5 seconds. Measurements of RNFL thickness acquired by this device have been shown to highly correlate with those obtained by a commercially available OCT device (H. M. Pakter, J.S.S., E.H., et al, unpublished data, 2001).

All patients underwent pupillary dilation with 1% tropicamide and 2.5% phenylephrine hydrochloride before recording OCT images. Each patient had 3 circular scans centered on the optic disc, with a diameter of 3.4 mm. Poor-quality scans were defined as those with a signal-noise ratio less than 40 or the presence of overt misalignment of the surface detection algorithm of at least 15 consecutive pixels or 20 additive pixels.

Variables used for the analysis were mean peripapillary RNFL thickness (OCT-mean) and 2 new variables that were computed for this study: OCT-MD (the mean difference between each of the 100 measuring points and age-adjusted normative values as determined in a previous study [H. M. Pakter, J.S.S., E.H., et al, unpublished data, 2001]) and OCT-PSD (the SD of the difference between the measured value and the age-adjusted normative value). The normative database consisted of 127 eyes of healthy individuals (mean ± SD age, 47.0 ± 17.4 years, with 25% of the individuals aged >58 years) that were scanned using the prototype device. Confirmed OCT progression was defined as thinning of the mean RNFL of at least 20 μm (based on 2× the reproducibility error of the device26) from the baseline measurement in 2 of 3 consecutive follow-up OCT scans.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data were analyzed using a statistical software program (SAS; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). The mixed procedure in SAS was used to correct for the correlation between measurements from the same patient. Pearson correlations were calculated between VF results and OCT measurements for tests conducted within 6 months of each other. Linear regression was used to determine the slope of change for VF and OCT measurements for each eye across time. The group mean slope was used for the analysis. A significant slope was defined as a slope that significantly differed from a zero slope (P<.05).

Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curves were used to assess time to progression as defined by the following criteria: an OCT-mean decline of 20 μm or a VF-MD decrease of 2 dB from the baseline value in 2 of 3 consecutive follow-up visits. The log-rank test was used to compare the K-M curves by diagnosis and subjective assessment of VF. The paired Prentice-Wilcoxon test, as suggested by Woolson and O’Gorman,41 was used to compare the OCT-mean and VF-MD curves to each other.

Fifty-five glaucoma eyes (32 patients) and 9 glaucoma suspect eyes (5 patients) qualified for the study. The characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. During median follow-up of 4.7 years, the participants had a median of 5 qualified OCT scans (range, 5-11 in the glaucoma group and 5-15 in the glaucoma suspects group). A median of 6 qualified VF tests (range, 5-11 in the glaucoma group and 5-9 in the glaucoma suspects group) were performed within a median of 4.2 years of follow-up. Most OCT scans and VF tests (95%) were conducted within 6 months of each other (Figure 1).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Difference in time between visual field testing and optical coherence tomography scanning.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population

The mean ± SD VF-MD for the glaucoma suspects group was −0.7 ± 2.1 dB at baseline and −1.1 ± 1.7 dB at the last visit (P = .04). The mean ± SD VF-MD for the glaucoma group was − 4.1 ± 4.8 dB at baseline and −4.1 ± 5.4 dB at the last visit (P = .67) (Table 2). No statistically significant difference was found between initial and final VF-PSD and AGIS scoring in either group. For OCT-mean, the mean ± SD measure in the glaucoma suspects group was 115.7 ± 36.2 μm at baseline and 111.3 ± 23.0 μm at the last visit (P = .02). In the glaucoma group, the initial mean ± SD OCT-mean was 94.0 ± 21.9 μm, and the final value was 82.3 ± 25.3 μm (P<.001). For OCT-MD and OCT-PSD, the differences between the first and last values were statistically significant only in the glaucoma group (Table 2). Cross-sectional correlations between OCT measures and global VF indices of tests conducted within 6 months of each other were moderate to good at each visit (Table 3).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Baseline and Last Visit VF and OCT Results*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Cross-sectional Pearson Correlation Between OCT Measures and VF Indices for Each Visit

Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used for evaluating time to progression. Overall, there was a greater likelihood of a repeatable OCT-mean RNFL decrease of 20 μm compared with a VF-MD decrease of 2 dB (P = .12) (Figure 2). Altogether, 22 of 64 eyes were found to progress when applying the repeatable VF-MD decrease of 2 dB and repeatable OCT decrease of 20 μm criteria. Fourteen eyes (22%) progressed by OCT only, 6 (9%) by VF only, and 2 (3%) by both methods. In setting the cutoff value for VF-MD, we tried to simulate clinical criteria for progression. Defining VF-MD progression as a repeatable decline of 1 dB yielded a higher number of VF progressors (12 eyes by OCT only, 15 by VF only, and 4 by both methods), whereas setting the level at 4 dB reduced the number of VF progressors (16 eyes by OCT only, 1 by VF only, and none by both methods) (Figure 3). Using the AGIS criteria, none of the participating eyes deteriorated during follow-up.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier survival curve for visual field mean deviation decrease of 2 dB (VF-MD2) and optical coherence tomography mean retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (OCT-mean) for the entire study group (P = .12).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for optical coherence tomography mean (OCT-mean) and visual field mean deviation (VF-MD) using cutoff values for repeatable declines of 1, 2, and 4 dB from baseline values for patients classified as having no subjective VF progression (A) vs subjective VF progression (B).

Graphic Jump Location

Eleven eyes had an increase in RNFL thickness of at least 20 μm from the baseline measurement in 1 visit. Only 4 eyes had reproducible RNFL thickening of at least 20 μm in 2 of 3 consecutive visits. The K-M curves using OCT-mean did not differ significantly in glaucoma suspects vs patients with glaucoma (P = .72). Similar results were found for K-M curves of OCT-mean stratified by subjective VF assessment (P = .40).

Comparing OCT-mean and VF-MD for patients defined as progressors or nonprogressors by the subjective assessment of VF, we found a greater likelihood for progression by OCT-mean compared with VF-MD in the VF nonprogressor group (P = .01) (Figure 4A). In VF progressors, the curves overlapped and the difference was not significant (P = .31) (Figure 4B).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for optical coherence tomography mean (OCT-mean) and visual field mean deviation decrease of 2 dB (VF-MD2) in the nonprogressor (P = .01) (A) and progressor (P = .31) (B) groups as defined by subjective assessment of VF.

Graphic Jump Location

Linear regression analysis was used as an additional method to assess progression. The mean ± SD linear regression slope for VF-MD in the glaucoma suspects group was −0.12 ± 0.45 dB per year and for the glaucoma group was 0.04 ± 0.54 dB per year (P = .78). The mean ± SD VF-PSD mean linear regression slope was −0.07 ± 0.16 dB per year in the glaucoma suspects group and −0.04 ± 0.36 dB per year in the glaucoma group (P = .77). No significant differences were found for OCT regression slopes between glaucoma suspects and glaucomatous eyes for mean ± SD OCT-mean (−2.56 ± 5.76 μm per year and −2.21 ± 4.12 μm per year, respectively; P = .88), OCT-MD (−2.10 ± 5.75 μm per year and −1.77 ± 4.12 μm per year; P = .87), and OCT-PSD (−0.72 ± 1.73 μm per year and 0.57 ± 1.85 μm per year; P = .06). Stratifying the group based on the subjective assessment of VF into VF progressors and VF nonprogressors, we found a significant difference only for VF-PSD (Table 4).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Linear Regression Slope for Subjectively Defined VF Progressors and Nonprogressors*

To determine the possibility of identifying changes using sectoral analysis, we reanalyzed the data after grouping the OCT data into 4 quadrants: superior, temporal, inferior, and nasal. The slope for each quadrant was calculated for each variable after subdividing the group to progressors and nonprogressors based on subjective assessment of VF. No significant differences were found between the mean slopes of progressors and nonprogressors for any sector.

This study evaluated longitudinal morphologic RNFL changes as determined by OCT and compared these changes with clinical status and functional glaucoma testing. The results of this study indicate that the rate of RNFL thinning as determined by OCT exceeded the rate of functional loss as measured by VF-MD deterioration for all participants (Figure 2).

In evaluating longitudinal changes, one should take into account the test-retest variability in repeated measurements. The criteria for progression events used for the K-M survival curve analysis were based on the known reproducibility error of the OCT technology used in this study26 and a chosen cutoff point for VF-MD. In setting the cutoff value for VF-MD, we tried to simulate clinical criteria for progression. We stratified the eyes into progressors and nonprogressors based on subjective VF assessment. In this condition, perfect sensitivity and specificity for the objective global VF progression criteria should identify all subjectively chosen progressors as progressing and should find that all nonprogressors were stable. The VF-MD that came closest to this was 2 dB (Figure 3). When we liberalized the cutoff value to 1 dB, the sensitivity increased but the specificity decreased. Many eyes subjectively identified as stable were called progressors by the objective global criteria at this level. Moreover, the objective criteria, which are based on a global variable, are not expected to be more sensitive than subjective assessment, which takes into account global and localized changes in detecting progression. Using a criterion of VF-MD of 4 dB, very few subjectively stable eyes were called progressors (Figure 3A); however, many VF progressors were missed at this threshold (Figure 3B). Thus, a VF-MD decline of 2 dB provided the best balance in this setting.

Using these criteria, 2 of the 8 eyes that progressed according to the VF criterion were defined as progressors by OCT also, whereas 14 eyes progressed by OCT without corresponding VF progression. Similar findings regarding the relationship between structural and functional changes were reported by Kass et al10 in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. In that study, 55% of the participants reached the predefined end-point criteria of their longitudinal study by ONH progression only, 35% by VF criteria, and only 10% by both methods.10 Chauhan et al9 reported similar findings with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy: 22 of 25 eyes, from a total of 77 studied eyes, that progressed by VF also progressed by confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, and 31 eyes progressed by confocal ophthalmoscopy only.

Using AGIS criteria for progression, none of the eyes progressed during follow-up. This finding reflects the conservative approach of this scoring system, which tends to detect few eyes as progressors compared with other scoring systems.42

When grouping the participating eyes by subjective assessment of VF, K-M analysis showed a significantly greater likelihood of progression by OCT than by VF for those who were classified as VF nonprogressors, and there were overlapping curves in the VF progressor group. The findings from the present study for subjective assessment of VF are biased in favor of VF-MD results because the graders were not masked to the global indices results in the VF printouts. The higher rate of RNFL loss in the nonprogressor group might reflect hypersensitivity of the OCT, or it might reflect true structural changes preceding the appearance of functional changes. This latter explanation is in agreement with previous studies,4346 in which a curvilinear relationship was found between functional and structural changes. One would expect a much larger change to be required initially to manifest a detectable functional change than a structural change (Figure 5). In the midportion of the disease, functional change has a greater slope than structural change, but late in the disease, structural change is again more acute. However, a recent study47 suggested that there is a linear structural and functional relationship and attributed the curvilinear relationship described previously herein to the logarithmic scaling of VF. Further studies are warranted to investigate this relationship.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Theoretical relationship between structural and functional glaucomatous damage.

Graphic Jump Location

To obtain longitudinal data, the study was conducted using data collected from our prototype OCT device. Although this device differs from current commercially available devices in that it has a longer scan time (2.5 seconds) and fewer points per scan (100 A-scans), a previous study showed high correlation between measurements obtained by the prototype device and the commercial OCT 2000 (H. M. Pakter, J.S.S., E.H., et al, unpublished data, 2001). Taking into account that OCT devices use the same physical principals and the high correlation between measurements obtained by prototype and OCT 2000 devices, we believe that the data in this study are relevant to the currently available commercial device. The reproducibility of RNFL measurements with the currently available commercial OCT (StratusOCT; Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, Calif) is approximately 2.5 μm compared with the approximately 10 μm of the prototype device used in this study.48 The improved reproducibility of the StratusOCT might improve the ability to detect longitudinal structural changes to a greater degree than found in this study. This warrants further investigation.

Cross-sectional correlation between OCT measures and global VF indices was found to be moderate to good throughout follow-up (Table 3). This finding is in agreement with previous studies11,32 that found good cross-sectional correlation between OCT and VF findings. Linear regression analysis has been used in previous studies36,4956 to evaluate longitudinal VF changes. However, owing to the large intervisit VF fluctuation, it has been recommended to obtain many VF tests across a long follow-up period.53,54 Thus, we required at least 5 VF tests as an inclusion criterion for this study. Most participants in the study were familiar with VF testing at the initial study visit. No perimetry learning effect was noted for the remaining participants.

The difference between the likelihood of progression of VF and OCT measures as defined by the linear regression slope stratified by baseline clinical diagnosis was found to be nonsignificant. The difference between the likelihood of progression for eyes that were classified as VF progressors and nonprogressors was found to be nonsignificant except for VF-PSD (Table 4). The subjective assessment of the VF was not masked to the global VF indices, and, thus, the results may be biased in favor of VF-related variables. We cannot explain the similarity of these VF-MD curves. Sectoral analysis of OCT results did not yield differences in the likelihood of progression between groups as determined by subjective assessment of VF.

Based on our results, the usefulness of linear regression for the detection of longitudinal glaucomatous changes with OCT is questionable. It is possible that glaucoma progression occurs in a nonlinear manner and that regression is not the most suitable technique for progression detection. The use of OCT-MD and OCT-PSD did not improve the ability to detect change.

In summary, this study longitudinally evaluated OCT peripapillary RNFL measurements and compared these with functional measures as determined by VF and with clinical status. There was a greater likelihood of glaucomatous progression as measured by OCT compared with VF. These findings suggest that OCT may be a more sensitive indicator than automated perimetry for glaucomatous progression; however, we cannot rule out the possibility that some of the progression identified by OCT represented type I error. Because there is no gold standard measure of glaucomatous progression, further study of larger populations across longer periods will be required to definitively answer this question.

Correspondence: Joel S. Schuman, MD, UPMC Eye Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 203 Lothrop St, The Eye and Ear Institute, Suite 816, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (schumanjs@upmc.edu).

Submitted for Publication: June 12, 2003; final revision received May 28, 2004; accepted May 28, 2004.

Financial Disclosure: Drs Schuman and Fujimoto are the inventors of optical coherence tomography.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by grants R01-EY13178-4, R01-EY11289-16, and P30-EY13078 from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md; grant ECS-0119452 from the National Science Foundation, Arlington, Va; grant F49620-01-1-0184 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Arlington; grant F49620-01-1-0186 from the Medical Free Electron Laser Program, Washington, DC; a grant from Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund Inc, Abington; Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY; and the American Physicians Fellowship for Medicine in Israel, Boston (Dr Wollstein).

Sommer  APollack  IMaumenee  A Optic disc parameters and onset of glaucomatous field loss, I: methods and progressive changes in disc morphology. Arch Ophthalmol 1979;971444- 1448
PubMed
Pederson  JAnderson  D The mode of progressive disc cupping in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1980;98490- 495
PubMed
Sommer  AQuigley  HRobin  A Evaluation of nerve fiber layer assessment. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;1021766- 1771
PubMed
Sommer  AKatz  JQuigley  HA  et al.  Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;10977- 83
PubMed
Quigley  HAKatz  JDerick  RJ  et al.  An evaluation of optic disc and nerve fiber layer examinations in monitoring progression of early glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology 1992;9919- 28
PubMed
Zeyen  TGCaprioli  J Progression of disc and field damage in early glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;11162- 65
PubMed
Quigley  HAEnger  CKatz  J  et al.  Risk factors for the development of glaucomatous visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112644- 649
PubMed
Sommer  AMiller  NRPollack  IMaumenee  AEGeorge  T The nerve fiber layer in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1977;952149- 2156
PubMed
Chauhan  BCMcCormick  TANicolela  MTLeBlanc  RP Optic disc and visual field changes in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with glaucoma: comparison of scanning laser tomography with conventional perimetry and optic disc photography. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;1191492- 1499
PubMed
Kass  MAHeuer  DKHigginbotham  EJ  et al.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120701- 713discussion829- 830
PubMed
Schuman  JSHee  MRPuliafito  CA  et al.  Quantification of nerve fiber layer thickness in normal and glaucomatous eyes using optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113586- 596
PubMed
Mikelberg  FSParfitt  CMSwindale  NV Ability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph to detect early glaucomatous visual field loss. J Glaucoma 1995;4242- 247
Weinreb  RNZangwill  LBerry  CC  et al.  Detection of glaucoma with scanning laser polarimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;1161583- 1589
PubMed
Wollstein  GGarway-Heath  DFHitchings  RA Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 1998;1051557- 1563
PubMed
Zeimer  RAsrani  SZou  S  et al.  Quantitative detection of glaucomatous damage at the posterior pole by retinal thickness mapping: a pilot study. Ophthalmology 1998;105224- 231
PubMed
Wollstein  GGarway-Heath  DFFontana  LHitchings  RA Identifying early glaucomatous changes: comparison between expert clinical assessment of optic disc photographs and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmology 2000;1072272- 2277
PubMed
Yamada  NChen  PPMills  RP  et al.  Glaucoma screening using the scanning laser polarimeter. J Glaucoma 2000;9254- 261
PubMed
Bowd  CZangwill  LMBerry  CC  et al.  Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;421993- 2003
PubMed
Choplin  NTLundy  DC The sensitivity and specificity of scanning laser polarimetry in the detection of glaucoma in a clinical setting. Ophthalmology 2001;108899- 904
PubMed
Miglior  SCasula  MGuareschi  M  et al.  Clinical ability of Heidelberg retinal tomograph examination to detect glaucomatous visual field changes. Ophthalmology 2001;1081621- 1627
PubMed
Nicolela  MTMartinez-Bello  CMorrison  CA  et al.  Scanning laser polarimetry in a selected group of patients with glaucoma and normal controls. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132845- 854
PubMed
Sanchez-Galeana  CBowd  CBlumenthal  EZ  et al.  Using optical imaging summary data to detect glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2001;1081812- 1818
PubMed
Zangwill  LMBowd  CBerry  CC  et al.  Discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119985- 993
PubMed
Greaney  MJHoffman  DCGarway-Heath  DF  et al.  Comparison of optic nerve imaging methods to distinguish normal eyes from those with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43140- 145
PubMed
Kesen  MRSpaeth  GLHenderer  JD  et al.  The Heidelberg Retina Tomograph vs clinical impression in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133613- 616
PubMed
Huang  DSwanson  EALin  CP  et al.  Optical coherence tomography. Science 1991;2541178- 1181
PubMed
Schuman  JSPedut-Kloizman  THertzmark  E  et al.  Reproducibility of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 1996;1031889- 1898
PubMed
Blumenthal  EZWilliams  JMWeinreb  RN  et al.  Reproducibility of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements by use of optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2000;1072278- 2282
PubMed
Mistlberger  ALiebmann  JMGreenfield  DS  et al.  Heidelberg retina tomography and optical coherence tomography in normal, ocular-hypertensive, and glaucomatous eyes. Ophthalmology 1999;1062027- 2032
PubMed
Pieroth  LSchuman  JSHertzmark  E  et al.  Evaluation of focal defects of the nerve fiber layer using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 1999;106570- 579
PubMed
Bowd  CWeinreb  RNWilliams  JMZangwill  LM The retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in ocular hypertensive, normal, and glaucomatous eyes with optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;11822- 26
PubMed
Hoh  STGreenfield  DSMistlberger  A  et al.  Optical coherence tomography and scanning laser polarimetry in normal, ocular hypertensive, and glaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129129- 135
PubMed
Zangwill  LMWilliams  JBerry  CC  et al.  A comparison of optical coherence tomography and retinal nerve fiber layer photography for detection of nerve fiber layer damage in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000;1071309- 1315
PubMed
Guedes  VSchuman  JSHertzmark  E  et al.  Optical coherence tomography measurement of macular and nerve fiber layer thickness in normal and glaucomatous human eyes. Ophthalmology 2003;110177- 189
PubMed
Kanamori  ANakamura  MEscano  MF  et al.  Evaluation of the glaucomatous damage on retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135513- 520
PubMed
Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, 2: visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology 1994;1011445- 1455
PubMed
Wild  JMPacey  IEO'Neill  ECCunliffe  IA The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;401998- 2009
PubMed
Bengtsson  BHeijl  A Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77143- 146
PubMed
Hee  MRIzatt  JASwanson  EA  et al.  Optical coherence tomography of the human retina. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113325- 332
PubMed
Pedut-Kloizman  TPakter  HMSchuman  JS  et al.  Ophthalmic diagnosis using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 1998;111178- 1181
Woolson  RFO’Gorman  TW A comparison of several tests for censored paired data. Stat Med 1992;11193- 208
PubMed
Vesti  EJohnson  CAChauhan  BC Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;443873- 3879
PubMed
Airaksinen  PJDrance  SMDouglas  GRSchulzer  M Neuroretinal rim areas and visual field indices in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1985;99107- 110
PubMed
Jonas  JBGrundler  AE Correlation between mean visual field loss and morphometric optic disk variables in the open-angle glaucomas. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;124488- 497
PubMed
Bartz-Schmidt  KUThumann  GJonescu-Cuypers  CPKrieglstein  GK Quantitative morphologic and functional evaluation of the optic nerve head in chronic open-angle glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;44 ((suppl 1)) S41- S53
PubMed
Harwerth  RSCarter-Dawson  LShen  F  et al.  Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;402242- 2250
PubMed
Garway-Heath  DFHolder  GEFitzke  FWHitchings  RA Relationship between electrophysiological, psychophysical, and anatomical measurements in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;432213- 2220
PubMed
Paunescu  LASchuman  JSPrice  LL  et al.  Reproducibility of nerve fiber thickness, macular thickness and optic nerve head measurements using StratusOCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;451716- 1724
PubMed
Mikelberg  FSSchulzer  MDrance  SMLau  W The rate of progression of scotomas in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;1011- 6
PubMed
Chauhan  BCDrance  SMDouglas  GR The use of visual field indices in detecting changes in the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990;31512- 520
PubMed
Morgan  RKFeuer  WJAnderson  DR Statpac 2 glaucoma change probability. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;1091690- 1692
PubMed
Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group, The Glaucoma Laser Trial (GLT), 6: treatment group differences in visual field changes. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;12010- 22
PubMed
Smith  SDKatz  JQuigley  HA Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;371419- 1428
PubMed
Katz  JGilbert  DQuigley  HASommer  A Estimating progression of visual field loss in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1997;1041017- 1025
PubMed
Rasker  MTvan den Enden  ABakker  DHoyng  PF Rate of visual field loss in progressive glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118481- 488
PubMed
Spry  PGJohnson  CA Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol 2002;47158- 173
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Difference in time between visual field testing and optical coherence tomography scanning.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier survival curve for visual field mean deviation decrease of 2 dB (VF-MD2) and optical coherence tomography mean retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (OCT-mean) for the entire study group (P = .12).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for optical coherence tomography mean (OCT-mean) and visual field mean deviation (VF-MD) using cutoff values for repeatable declines of 1, 2, and 4 dB from baseline values for patients classified as having no subjective VF progression (A) vs subjective VF progression (B).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for optical coherence tomography mean (OCT-mean) and visual field mean deviation decrease of 2 dB (VF-MD2) in the nonprogressor (P = .01) (A) and progressor (P = .31) (B) groups as defined by subjective assessment of VF.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Theoretical relationship between structural and functional glaucomatous damage.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Baseline and Last Visit VF and OCT Results*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Cross-sectional Pearson Correlation Between OCT Measures and VF Indices for Each Visit
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Linear Regression Slope for Subjectively Defined VF Progressors and Nonprogressors*

References

Sommer  APollack  IMaumenee  A Optic disc parameters and onset of glaucomatous field loss, I: methods and progressive changes in disc morphology. Arch Ophthalmol 1979;971444- 1448
PubMed
Pederson  JAnderson  D The mode of progressive disc cupping in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1980;98490- 495
PubMed
Sommer  AQuigley  HRobin  A Evaluation of nerve fiber layer assessment. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;1021766- 1771
PubMed
Sommer  AKatz  JQuigley  HA  et al.  Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;10977- 83
PubMed
Quigley  HAKatz  JDerick  RJ  et al.  An evaluation of optic disc and nerve fiber layer examinations in monitoring progression of early glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology 1992;9919- 28
PubMed
Zeyen  TGCaprioli  J Progression of disc and field damage in early glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;11162- 65
PubMed
Quigley  HAEnger  CKatz  J  et al.  Risk factors for the development of glaucomatous visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112644- 649
PubMed
Sommer  AMiller  NRPollack  IMaumenee  AEGeorge  T The nerve fiber layer in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1977;952149- 2156
PubMed
Chauhan  BCMcCormick  TANicolela  MTLeBlanc  RP Optic disc and visual field changes in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with glaucoma: comparison of scanning laser tomography with conventional perimetry and optic disc photography. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;1191492- 1499
PubMed
Kass  MAHeuer  DKHigginbotham  EJ  et al.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120701- 713discussion829- 830
PubMed
Schuman  JSHee  MRPuliafito  CA  et al.  Quantification of nerve fiber layer thickness in normal and glaucomatous eyes using optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113586- 596
PubMed
Mikelberg  FSParfitt  CMSwindale  NV Ability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph to detect early glaucomatous visual field loss. J Glaucoma 1995;4242- 247
Weinreb  RNZangwill  LBerry  CC  et al.  Detection of glaucoma with scanning laser polarimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;1161583- 1589
PubMed
Wollstein  GGarway-Heath  DFHitchings  RA Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 1998;1051557- 1563
PubMed
Zeimer  RAsrani  SZou  S  et al.  Quantitative detection of glaucomatous damage at the posterior pole by retinal thickness mapping: a pilot study. Ophthalmology 1998;105224- 231
PubMed
Wollstein  GGarway-Heath  DFFontana  LHitchings  RA Identifying early glaucomatous changes: comparison between expert clinical assessment of optic disc photographs and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmology 2000;1072272- 2277
PubMed
Yamada  NChen  PPMills  RP  et al.  Glaucoma screening using the scanning laser polarimeter. J Glaucoma 2000;9254- 261
PubMed
Bowd  CZangwill  LMBerry  CC  et al.  Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;421993- 2003
PubMed
Choplin  NTLundy  DC The sensitivity and specificity of scanning laser polarimetry in the detection of glaucoma in a clinical setting. Ophthalmology 2001;108899- 904
PubMed
Miglior  SCasula  MGuareschi  M  et al.  Clinical ability of Heidelberg retinal tomograph examination to detect glaucomatous visual field changes. Ophthalmology 2001;1081621- 1627
PubMed
Nicolela  MTMartinez-Bello  CMorrison  CA  et al.  Scanning laser polarimetry in a selected group of patients with glaucoma and normal controls. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132845- 854
PubMed
Sanchez-Galeana  CBowd  CBlumenthal  EZ  et al.  Using optical imaging summary data to detect glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2001;1081812- 1818
PubMed
Zangwill  LMBowd  CBerry  CC  et al.  Discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119985- 993
PubMed
Greaney  MJHoffman  DCGarway-Heath  DF  et al.  Comparison of optic nerve imaging methods to distinguish normal eyes from those with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43140- 145
PubMed
Kesen  MRSpaeth  GLHenderer  JD  et al.  The Heidelberg Retina Tomograph vs clinical impression in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133613- 616
PubMed
Huang  DSwanson  EALin  CP  et al.  Optical coherence tomography. Science 1991;2541178- 1181
PubMed
Schuman  JSPedut-Kloizman  THertzmark  E  et al.  Reproducibility of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 1996;1031889- 1898
PubMed
Blumenthal  EZWilliams  JMWeinreb  RN  et al.  Reproducibility of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements by use of optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2000;1072278- 2282
PubMed
Mistlberger  ALiebmann  JMGreenfield  DS  et al.  Heidelberg retina tomography and optical coherence tomography in normal, ocular-hypertensive, and glaucomatous eyes. Ophthalmology 1999;1062027- 2032
PubMed
Pieroth  LSchuman  JSHertzmark  E  et al.  Evaluation of focal defects of the nerve fiber layer using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 1999;106570- 579
PubMed
Bowd  CWeinreb  RNWilliams  JMZangwill  LM The retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in ocular hypertensive, normal, and glaucomatous eyes with optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;11822- 26
PubMed
Hoh  STGreenfield  DSMistlberger  A  et al.  Optical coherence tomography and scanning laser polarimetry in normal, ocular hypertensive, and glaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129129- 135
PubMed
Zangwill  LMWilliams  JBerry  CC  et al.  A comparison of optical coherence tomography and retinal nerve fiber layer photography for detection of nerve fiber layer damage in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000;1071309- 1315
PubMed
Guedes  VSchuman  JSHertzmark  E  et al.  Optical coherence tomography measurement of macular and nerve fiber layer thickness in normal and glaucomatous human eyes. Ophthalmology 2003;110177- 189
PubMed
Kanamori  ANakamura  MEscano  MF  et al.  Evaluation of the glaucomatous damage on retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135513- 520
PubMed
Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, 2: visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology 1994;1011445- 1455
PubMed
Wild  JMPacey  IEO'Neill  ECCunliffe  IA The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;401998- 2009
PubMed
Bengtsson  BHeijl  A Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77143- 146
PubMed
Hee  MRIzatt  JASwanson  EA  et al.  Optical coherence tomography of the human retina. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113325- 332
PubMed
Pedut-Kloizman  TPakter  HMSchuman  JS  et al.  Ophthalmic diagnosis using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 1998;111178- 1181
Woolson  RFO’Gorman  TW A comparison of several tests for censored paired data. Stat Med 1992;11193- 208
PubMed
Vesti  EJohnson  CAChauhan  BC Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;443873- 3879
PubMed
Airaksinen  PJDrance  SMDouglas  GRSchulzer  M Neuroretinal rim areas and visual field indices in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1985;99107- 110
PubMed
Jonas  JBGrundler  AE Correlation between mean visual field loss and morphometric optic disk variables in the open-angle glaucomas. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;124488- 497
PubMed
Bartz-Schmidt  KUThumann  GJonescu-Cuypers  CPKrieglstein  GK Quantitative morphologic and functional evaluation of the optic nerve head in chronic open-angle glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;44 ((suppl 1)) S41- S53
PubMed
Harwerth  RSCarter-Dawson  LShen  F  et al.  Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;402242- 2250
PubMed
Garway-Heath  DFHolder  GEFitzke  FWHitchings  RA Relationship between electrophysiological, psychophysical, and anatomical measurements in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;432213- 2220
PubMed
Paunescu  LASchuman  JSPrice  LL  et al.  Reproducibility of nerve fiber thickness, macular thickness and optic nerve head measurements using StratusOCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;451716- 1724
PubMed
Mikelberg  FSSchulzer  MDrance  SMLau  W The rate of progression of scotomas in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;1011- 6
PubMed
Chauhan  BCDrance  SMDouglas  GR The use of visual field indices in detecting changes in the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990;31512- 520
PubMed
Morgan  RKFeuer  WJAnderson  DR Statpac 2 glaucoma change probability. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;1091690- 1692
PubMed
Glaucoma Laser Trial Research Group, The Glaucoma Laser Trial (GLT), 6: treatment group differences in visual field changes. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;12010- 22
PubMed
Smith  SDKatz  JQuigley  HA Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;371419- 1428
PubMed
Katz  JGilbert  DQuigley  HASommer  A Estimating progression of visual field loss in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1997;1041017- 1025
PubMed
Rasker  MTvan den Enden  ABakker  DHoyng  PF Rate of visual field loss in progressive glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118481- 488
PubMed
Spry  PGJohnson  CA Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol 2002;47158- 173
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics