4.6 Article

Geographic Atrophy and Activity of Neovascularization in Retinal Angiomatous Proliferation

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages 1500-1505

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.15-18837

Keywords

retinal angiomatous proliferation; geographic atrophy; neovascularization; anti-VEGF treatment; neovascular activity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To investigate the association between geographic atrophy (GA) and neovascular activity in retinal angiomatous proliferation (RAP) during anti-VEGF treatment. METHODS. Ninety-one RAP eyes (74 patients) treated with anti-VEGF on an as-needed basis for at least 3 years were evaluated. Development of GA, area of GA, and injection numbers were assessed. RESULTS. Eighteen eyes that developed fibrous scar or massive hemorrhage were excluded. Forty-four eyes (60%) developed GA (GA group), and 29 eyes (40%) did not develop GA (non-GA group) at year 3. The mean injection number continuously decreased in the GA group (5.1, 3.1, and 1.9 at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, P < 0.01, < 0.01), but did not decrease at year 3 in the non-GA group (4.6, 3.5, and 3.3 at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, P < 0.01, = 0.64). In both groups, best-corrected visual acuity improved significantly at year 1 and declined to baseline level at year 3. During the entire follow-up (mean of 48.5 months), 57 eyes developed GA. In those eyes, number of injections per year before and after the development of GA was 4.5 and 2.1 (P < 0.01), and showed continuous decline after GA development as the area of GA progressed at a rate of 1.85 mm(2) per year. CONCLUSIONS. The activity of RAP lesion requiring anti-VEGF treatment diminished as GA developed and progressed. Identification of GA and its progression provides further information to tailor anti-VEGF treatment for each patient.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available