Secondary analyses
tumor
REGRESSION, TUMOR
Secondary (and primary) outcomes were compared between patients who underwent surgery and those who did not and, for those who underwent surgery, between those for whom surgery was indicated by AVS only, MTO only or both tests.Groups were initially compared using Fisher’s exact test or Kruskal–Wallis test, as appropriate. Linear, binary logistic or proportional odds logistic regression models were then used, adjusted for age and sex. These models were extended to investigate other predictors of outcome after surgery, in the subset of patients who underwent surgery. There was particular interest in blood pressure at baseline and 4 weeks, age, sex, ethnicity, the number of classes/defined daily dose of antihypertensive medications at baseline, tumor genotypes and immunohistochemical classification, contralateral suppression, numbers of nodules, blood biomarkers, SUVmax and the 24-hour urine steroid profile.For each of the primary outcomes, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the impact of including patients for whom AVS was classified as failed. A bootstrap procedure was applied, sampling with replacement from the 78 patients who underwent surgery. Sampling was stratified by whether AVS was successful or failed. For each sample, the estimated difference in accuracy between MTO and AVS was calculated for the combined sample of 78 patients and for the 67 patients for whom AVS had not failed, and the difference between these estimated differences was taken as a measure of the sensitivity of the overall result to the inclusion of AVS failures. One million replicates were drawn and a 95% CI was derived by the percentile method. If the 95% CI excluded zero, the overall result was judged to be sensitive to the inclusion of AVS failures. If the 95% CI included zero, the results were judged to be insensitive to the AVS failures.Clinical data were analyzed using the 64 bit version 4.1.0 of R. Experimental data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism Version 9.