Estimating and testing for center effects in competing risks

The problems of fitting Gaussian frailties proportional hazards models for the subdistribution of a competing risk and of testing for center effects are considered. In the analysis of competing risks data, Fine and Gray proposed a proportional hazards model for the subdistribution to directly assess the effects of covariates on the marginal failure probabilities of a given failure cause. Katsahianbiet al. extended their model to clustered time to event data, by including random center effects or frailties in the subdistribution hazard. We first introduce an alternate estimation procedure to the one proposed by Katsahian et al. This alternate estimation method is based on the penalized partial likelihood approach often used in fitting Gaussian frailty proportional hazards models in the standard survival analysis context, and has the advantage of using standard survival analysis software. Second, four hypothesis tests for the presence of center effects are given and compared via Monte-Carlo simulations. Statistical and numerical considerations lead us to formulate pragmatic guidelines as to which of the four tests is preferable. We also illustrate the proposed methodology with registry data from bone marrow transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia (AML).     

A proportional hazards regression model for the subdistribution with right-censored and left-truncated competing risks data

With competing risks failure time data, one often needs to assess the covariate effects on the cumulative incidence probabilities. Fine and Gray proposed a proportional hazards regression model to directly model the subdistribution of a competing risk. They developed the estimating procedure for right-censored competing risks data, based on the inverse probability of censoring weighting. Right-censored and left-truncated competing risks data sometimes occur in biomedical researches. In this paper, we study the proportional hazards regression model for the subdistribution of a competing risk with right-censored and left-truncated data. We adopt a new weighting technique to estimate the parameters in this model. We have derived the large sample properties of the proposed estimators. To illustrate the application of the new method, we analyze the failure time data for children with acute leukemia. In this example, the failure times for children who had bone marrow transplants were left truncated.     

Sample size calculations in the presence of competing risks

Recently, with the growth of statistical developments for competing risks analysis, some methods have been proposed to compute sample size in this context. These methods differ from a modelling approach: one is based on the Cox regression model for the cause-specific hazard, while another relies on the Fine and Gray regression model for the subdistribution hazard of a competing risk. In this work, we compare these approaches, derive a new sample size for comparing cumulative incidence functions when the hazards are not proportional (either cause-specific or subdistribution) and give practical advices to choose the approach best suited for the study question.     

Model selection in competing risks regression

In the analysis of time‐to‐event data, the problem of competing risks occurs when an individual may experience one, and only one, of m different types of events. The presence of competing risks complicates the analysis of time‐to‐event data, and standard survival analysis techniques such as Kaplan–Meier estimation, log‐rank test and Cox modeling are not always appropriate and should be applied with caution. Fine and Gray developed a method for regression analysis that models the hazard that corresponds to the cumulative incidence function. This model is becoming widely used by clinical researchers and is now available in all the major software environments. Although model selection methods for Cox proportional hazards models have been developed, few methods exist for competing risks data. We have developed stepwise regression procedures, both forward and backward, based on AIC, BIC, and BICcr (a newly proposed criteria that is a modified BIC for competing risks data subject to right censoring) as selection criteria for the Fine and Gray model. We evaluated the performance of these model selection procedures in a large simulation study and found them to perform well. We also applied our procedures to assess the importance of bone mineral density in predicting the absolute risk of hip fracture in the Women's Health Initiative–Observational Study, where mortality was the competing risk. We have implemented our method as a freely available R package called crrstep. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Variable selection in subdistribution hazard frailty models with competing risks data

The proportional subdistribution hazards model (i.e. Fine‐Gray model) has been widely used for analyzing univariate competing risks data. Recently, this model has been extended to clustered competing risks data via frailty. To the best of our knowledge, however, there has been no literature on variable selection method for such competing risks frailty models. In this paper, we propose a simple but unified procedure via a penalized h‐likelihood (HL) for variable selection of fixed effects in a general class of subdistribution hazard frailty models, in which random effects may be shared or correlated. We consider three penalty functions, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) and HL, in our variable selection procedure. We show that the proposed method can be easily implemented using a slight modification to existing h‐likelihood estimation approaches. Numerical studies demonstrate that the proposed procedure using the HL penalty performs well, providing a higher probability of choosing the true model than LASSO and SCAD methods without losing prediction accuracy. The usefulness of the new method is illustrated using two actual datasets from multi‐center clinical trials. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A comparison of multiple imputation and fully augmented weighted estimators for Cox regression with missing covariates

Several approaches exist for handling missing covariates in the Cox proportional hazards model. The multiple imputation (MI) is relatively easy to implement with various software available and results in consistent estimates if the imputation model is correct. On the other hand, the fully augmented weighted estimators (FAWEs) recover a substantial proportion of the efficiency and have the doubly robust property. In this paper, we compare the FAWEs and the MI through a comprehensive simulation study. For the MI, we consider the multiple imputation by chained equation and focus on two imputation methods: Bayesian linear regression imputation and predictive mean matching. Simulation results show that the imputation methods can be rather sensitive to model misspecification and may have large bias when the censoring time depends on the missing covariates. In contrast, the FAWEs allow the censoring time to depend on the missing covariates and are remarkably robust as long as getting either the conditional expectations or the selection probability correct due to the doubly robust property. The comparison suggests that the FAWEs show the potential for being a competitive and attractive tool for tackling the analysis of survival data with missing covariates. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Direct likelihood inference on the cause‐specific cumulative incidence function: A flexible parametric regression modelling approach

In a competing risks analysis, interest lies in the cause‐specific cumulative incidence function (CIF) that can be calculated by either (1) transforming on the cause‐specific hazard or (2) through its direct relationship with the subdistribution hazard. We expand on current competing risks methodology from within the flexible parametric survival modelling framework (FPM) and focus on approach (2). This models all cause‐specific CIFs simultaneously and is more useful when we look to questions on prognosis. We also extend cure models using a similar approach described by Andersson et al for flexible parametric relative survival models. Using SEER public use colorectal data, we compare and contrast our approach with standard methods such as the Fine & Gray model and show that many useful out‐of‐sample predictions can be made after modelling the cause‐specific CIFs using an FPM approach. Alternative link functions may also be incorporated such as the logit link. Models can also be easily extended for time‐dependent effects.     

Competing risks analysis of patients with osteosarcoma: a comparison of four different approaches

In failure time studies involving a chronic disease such as cancer, several competing causes of mortality may be operating. Commonly, the conventional statistical technique of Kaplan-Meier, which is only meaningfully interpreted by assuming independence of failure types and the censoring mechanism, is employed in clinical research involving competing risks data. Some authors have advocated the use of a cause-specific cumulative incidence function which takes into account the existence of other events within a competing risks framework, without making any assumption about independence. Lunn and McNeil have proposed an approach based on an extension of the Cox proportional hazards regression, which enables direct comparisons between failure types. We have extended this approach to estimate cause-specific cumulative incidence. As it is often not easy to follow competing risks methodology in the literature, this paper sets out systematically the assumptions made and the steps taken to implement four different methods of analysing competing risks data using cumulative incidence rates or the Kaplan-Meier estimates of cause-specific failure probabilities. The data obtained from a randomized trial of patients with osteosarcoma were used to compare these four approaches. As illustrated using the osteosarcoma data, the estimates of the classical Kaplan-Meier methods have larger numerical values than the cause-specific cumulative incidence. On the other hand, estimates of the cause-specific cumulative incidence rates from the conventional method and the modified Cox method are highly comparable.     

Parametric mixture models to evaluate and summarize hazard ratios in the presence of competing risks with time-dependent hazards and delayed entry

In the analysis of survival data, there are often competing events that preclude an event of interest from occurring. Regression analysis with competing risks is typically undertaken using a cause-specific proportional hazards model. However, modern alternative methods exist for the analysis of the subdistribution hazard with a corresponding subdistribution proportional hazards model. In this paper, we introduce a flexible parametric mixture model as a unifying method to obtain estimates of the cause-specific and subdistribution hazards and hazard-ratio functions. We describe how these estimates can be summarized over time to give a single number comparable to the hazard ratio that is obtained from a corresponding cause-specific or subdistribution proportional hazards model. An application to the Women's Interagency HIV Study is provided to investigate injection drug use and the time to either the initiation of effective antiretroviral therapy, or clinical disease progression as a competing event.     

Flexible parametric modelling of the cause‐specific cumulative incidence function

Competing risks arise with time‐to‐event data when individuals are at risk of more than one type of event and the occurrence of one event precludes the occurrence of all other events. A useful measure with competing risks is the cause‐specific cumulative incidence function (CIF), which gives the probability of experiencing a particular event as a function of follow‐up time, accounting for the fact that some individuals may have a competing event. When modelling the cause‐specific CIF, the most common model is a semi‐parametric proportional subhazards model. In this paper, we propose the use of flexible parametric survival models to directly model the cause‐specific CIF where the effect of follow‐up time is modelled using restricted cubic splines. The models provide smooth estimates of the cause‐specific CIF with the important advantage that the approach is easily extended to model time‐dependent effects. The models can be fitted using standard survival analysis tools by a combination of data expansion and introducing time‐dependent weights. Various link functions are available that allow modelling on different scales and have proportional subhazards, proportional odds and relative absolute risks as particular cases. We conduct a simulation study to evaluate how well the spline functions approximate subhazard functions with complex shapes. The methods are illustrated using data from the European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Registry showing excellent agreement between parametric estimates of the cause‐specific CIF and those obtained from a semi‐parametric model. We also fit models relaxing the proportional subhazards assumption using alternative link functions and/or including time‐dependent effects. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An approach to joint analysis of longitudinal measurements and competing risks failure time data

Joint analysis of longitudinal measurements and survival data has received much attention in recent years. However, previous work has primarily focused on a single failure type for the event time. In this paper we consider joint modelling of repeated measurements and competing risks failure time data to allow for more than one distinct failure type in the survival endpoint which occurs frequently in clinical trials. Our model uses latent random variables and common covariates to link together the sub-models for the longitudinal measurements and competing risks failure time data, respectively. An EM-based algorithm is derived to obtain the parameter estimates, and a profile likelihood method is proposed to estimate their standard errors. Our method enables one to make joint inference on multiple outcomes which is often necessary in analyses of clinical trials. Furthermore, joint analysis has several advantages compared with separate analysis of either the longitudinal data or competing risks survival data. By modelling the event time, the analysis of longitudinal measurements is adjusted to allow for non-ignorable missing data due to informative dropout, which cannot be appropriately handled by the standard linear mixed effects models alone. In addition, the joint model utilizes information from both outcomes, and could be substantially more efficient than the separate analysis of the competing risk survival data as shown in our simulation study. The performance of our method is evaluated and compared with separate analyses using both simulated data and a clinical trial for the scleroderma lung disease.     

Misspecified regression model for the subdistribution hazard of a competing risk

We consider a competing risks setting, when evaluating the prognostic influence of an exposure on a specific cause of failure. Two main regression models are used in such analyses, the Cox cause-specific proportional hazards model and the subdistribution proportional hazards model. They are exemplified in a real data example focusing on relapse-free interval in acute leukaemia patients. We examine the properties of the estimator based on the latter model when the true model is the former. An explicit relationship between subdistribution hazards ratio and cause-specific hazards ratio is derived, assuming a flexible parametric distribution for latent failure times.     

MISSING CAUSE OF DEATH INFORMATION IN THE ANALYSIS OF SURVIVAL DATA

Goetghebeur and Ryan proposed a method for proportional hazards analyses of competing risks failure-time data when the failure type is missing for some cases. This paper evaluates the properties of the method using data from a clinical trial in Hodgkin's disease. We generated several patterns of missingness in the cause of death in ‘pseudo-studies’ derived from the study database. We found that the proposed method provided regression coefficients and inferences that were less biased than those from other methods over an increasing percentage of missingness in the failure type when missingness is random, when it depends on an important covariate, when it depends on failure type, and when it depends on follow-up time. We present suggestions for study design with planned missingness in the failure type.     

Incorporating prognostic factors into causal estimators: A comparison of methods for randomised controlled trials with a time‐to‐event outcome

In randomised controlled trials, the effect of treatment on those who comply with allocation to active treatment can be estimated by comparing their outcome to those in the comparison group who would have complied with active treatment had they been allocated to it. We compare three estimators of the causal effect of treatment on compliers when this is a parameter in a proportional hazards model and quantify the bias due to omitting baseline prognostic factors. Causal estimates are found directly by maximising a novel partial likelihood; based on a structural proportional hazards model; and based on a ‘corrected dataset’ derived after fitting a rank‐preserving structural failure time model. Where necessary, we extend these methods to incorporate baseline covariates. Comparisons use simulated data and a real data example. Analysing the simulated data, we found that all three methods are accurate when an important covariate was included in the proportional hazards model (maximum bias 5.4%). However, failure to adjust for this prognostic factor meant that causal treatment effects were underestimated (maximum bias 11.4%), because estimators were based on a misspecified marginal proportional hazards model. Analysing the real data example, we found that adjusting causal estimators is important to correct for residual imbalances in prognostic factors present between trial arms after randomisation. Our results show that methods of estimating causal treatment effects for time‐to‐event outcomes should be extended to incorporate covariates, thus providing an informative compliment to the corresponding intention‐to‐treat analysis. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The exposure odds ratio in nested case-control studies with competing risks

A nested case-control study, also known as an ambidirectional study, is a case-control study within a cohort study. Although distortion by competing risks is well-recognized in follow-up studies, the problem has not been as widely appreciated in nested case-control studies. This paper extends previous work concerning the bias associated with competing risks for nested case-control studies. Specifically, the distorting effect of competing risks is illustrated for three methods of control selection. Assuming the proportional hazards model, the authors derived formulas for the bias of the odds ratio when competing risks cannot be ignored. Examples illustrate the magnitude of bias that occurs when the exposure of interest is associated with competing causes of death or withdrawal.     

Modelling two cause‐specific hazards of competing risks in one cumulative proportional odds model?

Competing risks extend standard survival analysis to considering time‐to‐first‐event and type‐of‐first‐event, where the event types are called competing risks. The competing risks process is completely described by all cause‐specific hazards, ie, the hazard marked by the event type. Separate Cox models for each cause‐specific hazard are the standard approach to regression modelling, but they come with the interpretational challenge that there are as many regression coefficients as there are competing risks. An alternative approach is to directly model the cumulative event probabilities, but again, there will be as many models as there are competing risks. The aim of this paper is to investigate the usefulness of a third alternative. Proportional odds modelling of all cause‐specific hazards summarizes the effect of one covariate on “opposing” competing outcomes in one regression coefficient. For instance, if the competing outcomes are hospital death and alive discharge from hospital, the modelling assumption is that a covariate affects both outcomes in opposing directions, but the effect size is of the same absolute magnitude. We will investigate the interpretational aspects of the approach analysing a data set on intensive care unit patients using parametric methods.     

Simulating competing risks data in survival analysis

Competing risks analysis considers time‐to‐first‐event (‘survival time’) and the event type (‘cause’), possibly subject to right‐censoring. The cause‐, i.e. event‐specific hazards, completely determine the competing risk process, but simulation studies often fall back on the much criticized latent failure time model. Cause‐specific hazard‐driven simulation appears to be the exception; if done, usually only constant hazards are considered, which will be unrealistic in many medical situations. We explain simulating competing risks data based on possibly time‐dependent cause‐specific hazards. The simulation design is as easy as any other, relies on identifiable quantities only and adds to our understanding of the competing risks process. In addition, it immediately generalizes to more complex multistate models. We apply the proposed simulation design to computing the least false parameter of a misspecified proportional subdistribution hazard model, which is a research question of independent interest in competing risks. The simulation specifications have been motivated by data on infectious complications in stem‐cell transplanted patients, where results from cause‐specific hazards analyses were difficult to interpret in terms of cumulative event probabilities. The simulation illustrates that results from a misspecified proportional subdistribution hazard analysis can be interpreted as a time‐averaged effect on the cumulative event probability scale. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Semiparametric regression on cumulative incidence function with interval‐censored competing risks data

Many biomedical and clinical studies with time‐to‐event outcomes involve competing risks data. These data are frequently subject to interval censoring. This means that the failure time is not precisely observed but is only known to lie between two observation times such as clinical visits in a cohort study. Not taking into account the interval censoring may result in biased estimation of the cause‐specific cumulative incidence function, an important quantity in the competing risks framework, used for evaluating interventions in populations, for studying the prognosis of various diseases, and for prediction and implementation science purposes. In this work, we consider the class of semiparametric generalized odds rate transformation models in the context of sieve maximum likelihood estimation based on B‐splines. This large class of models includes both the proportional odds and the proportional subdistribution hazard models (i.e., the Fine–Gray model) as special cases. The estimator for the regression parameter is shown to be consistent, asymptotically normal and semiparametrically efficient. Simulation studies suggest that the method performs well even with small sample sizes. As an illustration, we use the proposed method to analyze data from HIV‐infected individuals obtained from a large cohort study in sub‐Saharan Africa. We also provide the R function ciregic that implements the proposed method and present an illustrative example. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Joint modeling of longitudinal ordinal data and competing risks survival times and analysis of the NINDS rt‐PA stroke trial

Existing joint models for longitudinal and survival data are not applicable for longitudinal ordinal outcomes with possible non‐ignorable missing values caused by multiple reasons. We propose a joint model for longitudinal ordinal measurements and competing risks failure time data, in which a partial proportional odds model for the longitudinal ordinal outcome is linked to the event times by latent random variables. At the survival endpoint, our model adopts the competing risks framework to model multiple failure types at the same time. The partial proportional odds model, as an extension of the popular proportional odds model for ordinal outcomes, is more flexible and at the same time provides a tool to test the proportional odds assumption. We use a likelihood approach and derive an EM algorithm to obtain the maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters. We further show that all the parameters at the survival endpoint are identifiable from the data. Our joint model enables one to make inference for both the longitudinal ordinal outcome and the failure times simultaneously. In addition, the inference at the longitudinal endpoint is adjusted for possible non‐ignorable missing data caused by the failure times. We apply the method to the NINDS rt‐PA stroke trial. Our study considers the modified Rankin Scale only. Other ordinal outcomes in the trial, such as the Barthel and Glasgow scales, can be treated in the same way. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A comparison of two methods for the estimation of precision with incomplete longitudinal data, jointly modelled with a time-to-event outcome

Several methods for the estimation and comparison of rates of change in longitudinal studies with staggered entry and informative drop-outs have been recently proposed. For multivariate normal linear models, REML estimation is used. There are various approaches to maximizing the corresponding log-likelihood; in this paper we use a restricted iterative generalized least squares method (RIGLS) combined with a nested EM algorithm. An important statistical problem in such approaches is the estimation of the standard errors adjusted for the missing data (observed data information matrix). Louis has provided a general technique for computing the observed data information in terms of completed data quantities within the EM framework. The multiple imputation (MI) method for obtaining variances can be regarded as an alternative to this. The aim of this paper is to develop, apply and compare the Louis and a modified MI method in the setting of longitudinal studies where the source of missing data is either death or disease progression (informative) or end of the study (assumed non-informative). Longitudinal data are simultaneously modelled with the missingness process. The methods are illustrated by modelling CD4 count data from an HIV-1 clinical trial and evaluated through simulation studies. Both methods, Louis and MI, are used with Monte Carlo simulations of the missing data using the appropriate conditional distributions, the former with 100 simulations, the latter with 5 and 10. It is seen that naive SEs based on the completed data likelihood can be seriously biased. This bias was largely corrected by Louis and modified MI methods, which gave broadly similar estimates. Given the relative simplicity of the modified MI method, it may be preferable.