Clinician versus reading center assessment of cytomegalovirus retinitis lesion size.

Matthew Davis // Publications // Apr 01 2005

PubMed ID: 15808244

Author(s): Weinberg DV, Holbrook JT, Hubbard LD, Davis MD, Jabs DA, Holland GN; Studies of Ocular Complications of AIDS Research Group. Clinician versus reading center assessment of cytomegalovirus retinitis lesion size. Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):559-66. PMID 15808244

Journal: Ophthalmology, Volume 112, Issue 4, Apr 2005

PURPOSE To compare clinician and fundus photograph reading center assessments of the cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis area and change in the CMV retinitis area over time, and to investigate how these assessments correlate with the visual field (VF) of eyes with CMV retinitis.

DESIGN Analysis of pooled data from 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials and 1 prospective multicenter epidemiologic study.

PARTICIPANTS Ninety-five eyes of 79 patients. At baseline, each eye had CMV retinitis restricted to zone 1 and/or zone 2 (approximately the photographable postequatorial retina), as assessed by the evaluating clinician.

METHODS Comparison of CMV retinitis area, change in area over time as assessed by clinicians and a fundus photograph reading center, and correlation of these assessments with VF measurement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cytomegalovirus retinitis area, change in CMV retinitis area over time, and VF score.

RESULTS Baseline assessments of the mean retinitis area were, by clinicians, 12.8% of the total retinal area and, by the reading center, 6.3% of the total retinal area (P<0.001). There was a positive correlation between clinician and reading center assessments of retinitis area at baseline (rho = 0.77 and P<0.0001 by Pearson correlation and rho = 0.54 and P<0.001 by concordance). Both clinician and reading center size measures correlated negatively with VF (Spearman correlation rhos = -0.38 and -0.52, respectively; P<0.001 each). Mean changes in area over a 3-month interval were, by clinicians, +1.2% and, by the reading center, +1.1% (P = 0.68). Regression analysis showed a positive concordance (rho = 0.42, P<0.001). Change in VF over a 3-month interval did not correlate with change in retinitis area as assessed by clinicians or the reading center.

CONCLUSIONS Awareness of the similarities and differences between clinician and reading center assessments of CMV retinitis area should permit clinicians to apply research data to clinical practice more effectively. Clinician assessment of retinitis area correlates negatively with VF, a clinically meaningful visual outcome in patients with CMV retinitis.