Compares geographic atrophy growth in eyes with and without macular neovascularization, indicating distinct mechanisms and shared risks.
Purpose To compare geographic atrophy (GA) growth in eyes with and without macular neovascularization (MNV) and evaluate anti-VEGF therapy effects on GA progression. Methods One eye per patient with GA with one-year of follow-up was included. Patients who developed MNV in previously diagnosed GA were assigned to the MNV-GA group, while those who did not were assigned to the non-MNV group. OCT determined MNV location and type. GA was quantified from RPE en-face images using ImageJ over one year. Fellow eyes were followed to last visit. Analyses used SPSS with Mann–Whitney U; P < 0.05 denoted significance, and prespecified thresholds applied throughout analyses. Results A total of 60 eyes from 60 patients were included (mean age: 82.75 ± 7.31; 56.7% female). A significant difference in GA area growth over one year was observed between two groups, with slower GA enlargement in MNV-GA group (1.15 mm 2 vs. 2.36 mm 2 ; P = 0.001; and square root: 0.38 ± 0.28 vs. 0.46 ± 0.36; P = 0.040). In MNV-GA eyes, GA growth showed no correlation with the number of anti-VEGF injections ( P = 0.692). Most MNVs were type 1 (46.7%) and type 2 (43.3%) and were predominantly located at the GA border (70.0%), particularly in the central (30.0%) and superior (30.0%) sectors. Among the 60 fellow-eyes, 27 (45.0%) developed MNV during follow-up. Of these, 25 eyes (83.3%) were from patients from MNV-GA group, whereas only 2 eyes (6.7%) were from non-MNV group ( P < 0.001). Conclusion Eyes with MNV-GA showed slower GA enlargement over one-year, regardless of anti-VEGF frequency, and higher fellow-eye MNV risk, indicating shared risk factors but distinct mechanisms influencing disease progression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sadeghi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: