Objective:To update the consensus recommendations for reporting of quantitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) study results, thus revising the previously published Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements (APOSTEL) recommendations.Methods:To identify studies reporting quantitative OCT results, we performed a PubMed search for the terms “quantitative” and “optical coherence tomography” from 2015 to 2017. Corresponding authors of the identified publications were invited to provide feedback on the initial APOSTEL recommendations via online surveys following the principle of a modified Delphi method. The results were evaluated and discussed by a panel of experts, and changes to the initial recommendations were proposed. A final survey was recirculated among the corresponding authors to obtain a majority vote on the proposed changes.Results:One hundred sixteen authors participated in the surveys, resulting in 15 suggestions, of which 12 were finally accepted and incorporated into an updated 9-point-checklist. We harmonized the nomenclature of the outer retinal layers, added the exact area of measurement to the description of volume scans; we suggested reporting device-specific features. We advised to address potential bias in manual segmentation or manual correction of segmentation errors. References to specific reporting guidelines and room light conditions were removed. The participants’ consensus with the recommendations increased from 80% for the previous APOSTEL version to greater than 90%.Conclusions:The modified Delphi method resulted in an expert-led guideline (evidence class III, GRADE criteria) concerning study protocol, acquisition device, acquisition settings, scanning protocol, fundoscopic imaging, post-acquisition data selection, post-acquisition analysis, nomenclature and abbreviations, and statistical approach. It will still be essential to update these recommendations to new research and practices regularly.

The aim of this study was to summarise existing findings regarding optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements of ganglion cell layer (GCL) alterations in optic neuritis (ON) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Peer-reviewed studies published prior to April 2016 were searched using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus. Studies were included if they measured GCL thickness using OCT in patients with either ON, MS or clinically isolated syndrome. For the meta-analysis, we compared GCL thickness in MS patients with and without prior ON, to healthy controls. 42/252 studies were reviewed. In acute ON, studies showed significant thinning of the GCL within the first 5 weeks (n = 5), earlier than retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thinning. GCL thinning at 1-2 months after acute ON predicted visual function at 6 months (n = 3). The meta-analysis showed that the thickness of the GCL was significantly reduced in MS patients both with and without previous ON compared to healthy controls. GCL thinning was associated with visual function in most studies (n = 10) and expanded disability status scale (EDSS) scores (n = 6). In acute ON, thinning of the GCL is measurable prior to RNFL thinning, and GCL thickness after 1-2 months may predict visual function after 6 months. Furthermore, GCL thinning occurs in MS both with and without prior ON, and may be associated with visual function and EDSS score. This suggests that the GCL is a promising biomarker, which may be used to examine in vivo neurodegeneration in ON and MS.

Objective: To validate kappa free light chain (KFLC) and lambda free light chain (LFLC) indices as a diagnostic biomarker in multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: We performed a multicenter study including 745 patients from 18 centers (219 controls and 526 clinically isolated syndrome (CIS)/MS patients) with a known oligoclonal IgG band (OCB) status. KFLC and LFLC were measured in paired cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum samples. Gaussian mixture modeling was used to define a cut-off for KFLC and LFLC indexes. Results: The cut-off for the KFLC index was 6.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.2–138.1). The cut-off for the LFLC index was 6.9 (95% CI = 4.5–22.2). For CIS/MS patients, sensitivity of the KFLC index (0.88; 95% CI = 0.85–0.90) was higher than OCB (0.82; 95%CI = 0.79–0.85; p < 0.001), but specificity (0.83; 95% CI = 0.78–0.88) was lower (OCB = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.89–0.96; p < 0.001). Both sensitivity and specificity for the LFLC index were lower than OCB. Conclusion: Compared with OCB, the KFLC index is more sensitive but less specific for diagnosing CIS/MS. Lacking an elevated KFLC index is more powerful for excluding MS compared with OCB but the latter is more important for ruling in a diagnosis of CIS/MS.