| Literature DB >> 32990741 |
Graeme Eisenhofer1,2, Claudio Durán3, Carlo Vittorio Cannistraci3,4, Mirko Peitzsch2, Tracy Ann Williams5,6, Anna Riester6, Jacopo Burrello5, Fabrizio Buffolo5, Aleksander Prejbisz7, Felix Beuschlein6,8, Andrzej Januszewicz7, Paolo Mulatero5, Jacques W M Lenders1,9, Martin Reincke6.
Abstract
Importance: Most patients with primary aldosteronism, a major cause of secondary hypertension, are not identified or appropriately treated because of difficulties in diagnosis and subtype classification. Applications of artificial intelligence combined with mass spectrometry-based steroid profiling could address this problem. Objective: To assess whether plasma steroid profiling combined with machine learning might facilitate diagnosis and treatment stratification of primary aldosteronism, particularly for patients with unilateral adenomas due to pathogenic KCNJ5 sequence variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was conducted at multiple tertiary care referral centers. Steroid profiles were measured from June 2013 to March 2017 in 462 patients tested for primary aldosteronism and 201 patients with hypertension. Data analyses were performed from September 2018 to August 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The aldosterone to renin ratio and saline infusion tests were used to diagnose primary aldosteronism. Subtyping was done by adrenal venous sampling and follow-up of patients who underwent adrenalectomy. Statistical tests and machine-learning algorithms were applied to plasma steroid profiles. Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic performance measures were calculated.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32990741 PMCID: PMC7525346 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.16209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JAMA Netw Open ISSN: 2574-3805
Comparisons of Age, Sex, and Primary Aldosteronism Surgical Outcome Clinical and Biochemical Outcomes in Patients With Adrenal Venous Sampling–Lateralized Evidence of Unilateral Adrenal Aldosterone Secretion According to the Presence or Absence of KCNJ5 Sequence Variants in Resected Adenomas
| Characteristic | Patients, No. (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Wild-type | |||
| Age, mean (SD), y | 53.1 (10.3) | 47.4 (10.8) | .002 |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 28 (28.9) | 47 (78.3) | <.001 |
| Male | 69 (71.1) | 13 (27.7) | |
| Clinical outcomes of primary aldosteronism surgery | |||
| Complete cure | 20 (20.6) | 24 (40.0) | .008 |
| Partial cure | 52 (53.6) | 30 (50.0) | |
| Failure | 25 (25.8) | 6 (10.0) | |
| Biochemical outcomes of primary aldosteronism surgery | |||
| Complete cure | 81 (83.6) | 58 (96.6) | .04 |
| Partial cure | 7 (7.2) | 1 (1.7) | |
| Failure | 9 (9.2) | 1 (1.7) | |
In the multivariate analyses for clinical outcomes, likelihood ratios were 9.34 for age impact (P = .009), 6.01 for sex impact (P = .05), and 1.42 for KCNJ5 impact (P = .49), with P < .001 for the whole model.
In the multivariate analyses for biochemical outcomes, likelihood ratios were 9.15 for age impact (P = .01), 0.34 for sex impact (P = .85), and 7.16 for KCNJ5 impact (P = .03), with P = .01 for the whole model.
Plasma Concentrations of Steroids in Reference Patients With Hypertension, Patients With Primary Hypertension, and Patients with Bilateral Primary Aldosteronism or Unilateral Primary Aldosteronism Without and With KCNJ5 Sequence Variants
| Steroid | Plasma concentration, least square geometric mean (95% CI), nmol/L | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypertension | Primary aldosteronism | ||||
| Reference | Primary | Bilateral | Unilateral with wild-type | Unilateral with | |
| Aldosterone | 0.091 (0.077-0.106) | 0.143 (0.119-0.169) | 0.260 (0.222-0.302) | 0.384 (0.312-0.463) | 0.436 (0.341-0.543) |
| 18-Oxocortisol | 0.026 (0.022-0.031) | 0.043 (0.035-0.052) | 0.056 (0.047-0.066) | 0.093 (0.074-0.114) | 0.578 (0.440-0.735) |
| 18-Hydroxycortisol | 1.62 (1.41-1.84) | 1.74 (1.50-1.99) | 1.75 (1.54-1.97) | 2.11 (1.79-2.46) | 6.960 (5.71-8.34) |
| Corticosterone | 4.28 (3.60-5.01) | 5.50 (4.57-6.53) | 7.21 (6.13-8.39) | 6.36 (5.15-7.70) | 7.11 (5.52-8.90) |
| 11-Deoxycorticosterone | 0.063 (0.052-0.075) | 0.112 (0.091-0.135) | 0.162 (0.136-0.191) | 0.277 (0.220-0.342) | 0.311 (0.235-0.397) |
| 11-Deoxycortisol | 1.332 (1.074-1.618) | 1.610 (1.275-1.985) | 2.935 (2.397-3.529) | 4.500 (3.455-5.686) | 2.917 (2.124-3.838) |
| 21-Deoxycortisol | 0.039 (0.030-0.050) | 0.044 (0.032-0.057) | 0.078 (0.060-0.099) | 0.083 (0.059-0.111) | 0.085 (0.056-0.120) |
| Cortisol | 237 (213-262) | 332 (296-370) | 327 (296-360) | 248 (218-280) | 274 (235-317) |
| Cortisone | 47.2 (43.2-51.4) | 53.2 (48.3-58.4) | 48.4 (44.5-52.5) | 35.5 (31.8-39.4) | 43.4 (38.2-49.1) |
| Androstenedione | 2.47 (2.25-2.70) | 2.69 (2.43-2.96) | 3.48 (3.19-3.79) | 2.87 (2.56-3.19) | 3.16 (2.76-3.58) |
| Dehydroepiandrosterone | 8.70 (7.66-9.81) | 7.91 (6.89-8.99) | 7.90 (7.01-8.85) | 6.19 (5.30-7.15) | 7.97 (6.63-9.45) |
| Dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate | 3401 (3061-3758) | 2805 (2504-3125) | 2718 (2461-2987) | 2234 (1965-2520) | 2506 (2151-2888) |
| 17-Hydroxyprogesterone | 1.10 (0.96-1.24) | 1.39 (1.20-1.59) | 2.07 (1.83-2.33) | 1.95 (1.65-2.27) | 2.05 (1.68-2.45) |
| Progesterone | 0.336 (0.269-0.411) | 0.277 (0.217-0.344) | 0.595 (0.483-0.720) | 0.577 (0.438-0.735) | 0.431 (0.310-0.572) |
| Pregnenolone | 1.95 (1.61-2.32) | 2.12 (1.73-2.56) | 1.51 (1.26-1.78) | 2.09 (1.66-2.58) | 2.30 (1.74-2.94) |
Geometric means and 95% CIs were derived from the exponents of logarithmically transformed data. For whole model differences, see eTable 4 in the Supplement.
Figure 1. Areas Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves (AUROCs) Comparing the Aldosterone to Renin Ratio (ARR) With a Steroid Profile (SP) and the Combination of the SP and the ARR
Each of the 4 panels represents a comparison of AUROCs for the single indicated patient group with the other 3 groups combined. Thus, AUROCs for primary hypertension illustrate the diagnostic performance for distinguishing all patients with primary aldosteronism from primary hypertension, but with sensitivity illustrative for detection of primary hypertension. The 8 steroids included in the profile were aldosterone, 18-oxocortisol, 18-hydroxycortisol, 11-deoxycorticosterone, cortisol, cortisone, androstenedione, and dehydroepiandrosterone.
Figure 2. Results for the 2 Best Machine-Learning Models
Panels A and C show a random forest (RF) model for the differentiation of primary hypertension (HT) from primary aldosteronism. Panels B and D show a support vector machine (SVM) with a nonlinear kernel model for the differentiation of patients with unilateral aldosterone-producing adenomas due to KCNJ5 sequence variants in primary aldosteronism vs other groups. Panel A shows the subtree from 1 decision tree of 500 in the model representing how random forest predicts new samples. Panel B outlines the mathematical formula used in SVM to predict new sample scores, where k is the number of binary SVM models created for the 1 vs 1 approach for multiclass SVM training, x is the new sample to be predicted, n is the number of support vectors for the kth binary SVM, α and b are the parameters learned from the training step of the kth binary SVM, γ is the class of the respective kth support vector (1 or −1), and G(Χ,Χ) is the dot product between the jth support vector hyperplane measures in the binary SVM k with the (new) sample measurements x. Correlation networks from the respective selected features for each model are shown in panels C and D, with nodes in brown showing common features. DHEA indicates dehydroepiandrosterone.
Confusion Matrices and Diagnostic Performance for the 2 Machine-Learning Models (RF-Gini and SVMnl-RFE) for the Learning (Training and Testing) and External Validation Series of Patients With PHT, B-PA, and Unilateral Primary Aldosteronism With and Without KCNJ5 Sequence Variants
| Actual groups | Predicted groups | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learning | External validation | |||||||
| PHT | B-PA | Wild-type | PHT | B-PA | Wild-type | |||
| RF-Gini | ||||||||
| Confusion matrices | ||||||||
| PHT | 60.4 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| B-PA | 9 | 11 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Wild-type | 4.1 | 5.4 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
|
| 2 | 1.7 | 2 | 4.6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Diagnostic performance | ||||||||
| Sensitivity, % | 94 (93-94) | 42 (40-45) | 26 (24-29) | 46 (42-49) | 100 | 46 | 38 | 83 |
| Specificity, % | 69 (68-71) | 89 (89-90) | 94 (94-95) | 97 (96-97) | 85 | 92 | 93 | 98 |
| AUROC | 0.815 (0.807-0.825) | 0.657 (0.645-0.670) | 0.599 (0.585-0.613) | 0.714 (0.690-0.730) | 0.926 | 0.691 | 0.651 | 0.908 |
| PPV, % | 80 (79-81) | 52 (50-55) | 38 (32-40) | 59 (55-64) | 90 | 60 | 43 | 83 |
| NPV, % | 89 (88-90) | 86 (85-87) | 90 (89-91) | 95 (94-95) | 100 | 87 | 91 | 98 |
|
| 0.863 (0.858-0.870) | 0.464 (0.440-0.480) | 0.309 (0.279-0.336) | 0.516 (0.484-0.548) | 0.947 | 0.522 | 0.400 | 0.833 |
| SVMnl-RFEl | ||||||||
| Confusion matrices | ||||||||
| PHT | 63.2 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0 | 35 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| B-PA | 10.6 | 10.8 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
| Wild-type | 2.8 | 3.6 | 6.6 | 1.6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
|
| 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 8.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Diagnostic performance | ||||||||
| Sensitivity, % | 98 (97-98) | 45 (43-47) | 45 (42-49) | 85 (81-88) | 97 | 38 | 50 | 100 |
| Specificity, % | 70 (69-73) | 94 (94-95) | 98 (88-98) | 97 (96-97) | 78 | 96 | 93 | 98 |
| AUROC | 0.841 (0.831-0.850) | 0.695 (0.684-0.706) | 0.716 (0.700-0.736) | 0.909 (0.890-0.920) | 0.875 | 0.672 | 0.714 | 0.991 |
| PPV, % | 81 (80-83) | 69 (67-71) | 78 (74-81) | 77 (74-80) | 85 | 71 | 50 | 86 |
| NPV, % | 95 (94-95) | 86 (85-87) | 92 (91-93) | 98 (97-99) | 95 | 86 | 93 | 100 |
|
| 0.888 (0.883-0.895) | 0.537 (0.516-0.556) | 0.562 (0.528-0.593) | 0.801 (0.777-0.825) | 0.909 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.923 |
Abbreviations: AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; B-PA, bilateral primary aldosteronism; NPV, negative predictive value; PHT, primary hypertension; PPV, positive predictive value.
For learning series, numbers in confusion matrices reflect 5-folds of patients (ie, 569/5 = 114 patient for each fold) with evaluations of each fold performed 10 times within each learning series (thus, numbers represent the mean of 50 confusion matrices).
For the external validation series numbers reflect the learning proportions (90:10) and 10% (63) of the total number of patients (632) in the analysis.
Values for diagnostic performance in learning series are shown with 95% CI, whereas those for validation series are not.