Patient death as a censoring event or competing risk event in models of nursing home placement

Participant death is often observed in studies that examine predictors of events, such as hospitalization or institutionalization, in older adult populations. The Cox proportional hazards modeling of the target event, whereby death is treated as a censoring event, is the standard analysis in this competing risks situation. However, the assumption of noninformative censoring applied to a frequently occurring competing event like death may be invalid and complicate interpretation in terms of the probability of the event. Multiple cause‐specific hazard (CSH) models can be estimated, but ambiguities may arise when interpreting covariate effects across multiple CSH models and in terms of the cumulative incidence function (CIF). Alternatively, one can model the proportional hazards of the subdistribution of the CIF and evaluate the covariate effects on the CIF directly. We examine and compare these two approaches with nursing home (NH) placement data from a randomized controlled trial of a counseling and support intervention for spouse‐caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease. CSHs for NH placement (where death is treated as a censoring event) and death (where NH placement is treated as a censoring event) and subdistribution hazards of the CIF for NH placement are modeled separately. In the presence of multiple covariates, the intervention effect is significant in both approaches, but the interpretation of the covariate effects requires joint evaluation of all estimated models. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Propensity-score matching with competing risks in survival analysis

Propensity-score matching is a popular analytic method to remove the effects of confounding due to measured baseline covariates when using observational data to estimate the effects of treatment. Time-to-event outcomes are common in medical research. Competing risks are outcomes whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the primary time-to-event outcome of interest. All non-fatal outcomes and all cause-specific mortality outcomes are potentially subject to competing risks. There is a paucity of guidance on the conduct of propensity-score matching in the presence of competing risks. We describe how both relative and absolute measures of treatment effect can be obtained when using propensity-score matching with competing risks data. Estimates of the relative effect of treatment can be obtained by using cause-specific hazard models in the matched sample. Estimates of absolute treatment effects can be obtained by comparing cumulative incidence functions (CIFs) between matched treated and matched control subjects. We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to compare the empirical type I error rate of different statistical methods for testing the equality of CIFs estimated in the matched sample. We also examined the performance of different methods to estimate the marginal subdistribution hazard ratio. We recommend that a marginal subdistribution hazard model that accounts for the within-pair clustering of outcomes be used to test the equality of CIFs and to estimate subdistribution hazard ratios. We illustrate the described methods by using data on patients discharged from hospital with acute myocardial infarction to estimate the effect of discharge prescribing of statins on cardiovascular death.     

Practical recommendations for reporting Fine‐Gray model analyses for competing risk data

In survival analysis, a competing risk is an event whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the primary event of interest. Outcomes in medical research are frequently subject to competing risks. In survival analysis, there are 2 key questions that can be addressed using competing risk regression models: first, which covariates affect the rate at which events occur, and second, which covariates affect the probability of an event occurring over time. The cause‐specific hazard model estimates the effect of covariates on the rate at which events occur in subjects who are currently event‐free. Subdistribution hazard ratios obtained from the Fine‐Gray model describe the relative effect of covariates on the subdistribution hazard function. Hence, the covariates in this model can also be interpreted as having an effect on the cumulative incidence function or on the probability of events occurring over time. We conducted a review of the use and interpretation of the Fine‐Gray subdistribution hazard model in articles published in the medical literature in 2015. We found that many authors provided an unclear or incorrect interpretation of the regression coefficients associated with this model. An incorrect and inconsistent interpretation of regression coefficients may lead to confusion when comparing results across different studies. Furthermore, an incorrect interpretation of estimated regression coefficients can result in an incorrect understanding about the magnitude of the association between exposure and the incidence of the outcome. The objective of this article is to clarify how these regression coefficients should be reported and to propose suggestions for interpreting these coefficients.     

Analysing multicentre competing risks data with a mixed proportional hazards model for the subdistribution

In the competing-risks setting, to test the effect of a covariate on the probability of one particular cause of failure, the Fine and Gray model for the subdistribution hazard can be used. However, sometimes, competing risks data cannot be considered as independent because of a clustered design, for instance in registry cohorts or multicentre clinical trials. Frailty models have been shown useful to analyse such clustered data in a classical survival setting, where only one risk acts on the population. Inclusion of random effects in the subdistribution hazard has not been assessed yet. In this work, we propose a frailty model for the subdistribution hazard. This allows first to assess the heterogeneity across clusters, then to incorporate such an effect when testing the effect of a covariate of interest. Based on simulation study, the effect of the presence of heterogeneity on testing for covariate effects was studied. Finally, the model was illustrated on a data set from a registry cohort of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia who underwent bone marrow transplantation.     

A competing risks analysis of bloodstream infection after stem-cell transplantation using subdistribution hazards and cause-specific hazards

After peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation, patients treated for severe haematologic diseases enter a critical phase (neutropenia). Analysis of bloodstream infection during neutropenia has to account for competing risks. Separate Cox analyses of all cause-specific hazards are the standard technique of choice, but are hard to interpret when the overall effects of covariates on the cumulative incidence function (CIF) are of interest. Proportional subdistribution hazards modelling of the subdistribution of the CIF is establishing itself as an interpretation-friendly alternative. We apply both methods and discuss their relative merits.     

Linear and nonlinear variable selection in competing risks data

Subdistribution hazard model for competing risks data has been applied extensively in clinical researches. Variable selection methods of linear effects for competing risks data have been studied in the past decade. There is no existing work on selection of potential nonlinear effects for subdistribution hazard model. We propose a two‐stage procedure to select the linear and nonlinear covariate(s) simultaneously and estimate the selected covariate effect(s). We use spectral decomposition approach to distinguish the linear and nonlinear parts of each covariate and adaptive LASSO to select each of the 2 components. Extensive numerical studies are conducted to demonstrate that the proposed procedure can achieve good selection accuracy in the first stage and small estimation biases in the second stage. The proposed method is applied to analyze a cardiovascular disease data set with competing death causes.     

Discrete-time survival data with longitudinal covariates

Survival analysis has been conventionally performed on a continuous time scale. In practice, the survival time is often recorded or handled on a discrete scale; when this is the case, the discrete-time survival analysis would provide analysis results more relevant to the actual data scale. Besides, data on time-dependent covariates in the survival analysis are usually collected through intermittent follow-ups, resulting in the missing and mismeasured covariate data. In this work, we propose the sufficient discrete hazard (SDH) approach to discrete-time survival analysis with longitudinal covariates that are subject to missingness and mismeasurement. The SDH method employs the conditional score idea available for dealing with mismeasured covariates, and the penalized least squares for estimating the missing covariate value using the regression spline basis. The SDH method is developed for the single event analysis with the logistic discrete hazard model, and for the competing risks analysis with the multinomial logit model. Simulation results revel good finite-sample performances of the proposed estimator and the associated asymptotic theory. The proposed SDH method is applied to the scleroderma lung study data, where the time to medication withdrawal and time to death were recorded discretely in months, for illustration.     

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.     

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.     

Event history graphs for censored survival data

A compact graphical device for combining survival and time-varying covariate information is proposed. The proposed graph contains the Kaplan-Meier estimator for right-censored data and a simultaneous display of the behaviour of time-dependent covariate(s) and the lifetime for each subject in the sample. The observed levels of time-dependent covariates are possibly subjected to an initial dimension reduction or smoothing step to produce a continuous covariate function. Values of this function are plotted on a horizontal bar for the length of the lifetime of the subject. Covariate information for censored data is also incorporated. The union of the horizontal bars forms the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the survival function. Our graphical method is implemented with a new S-plus function and demonstrated in several applications.     

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).     

Modelling competing risks in cancer studies

Competing risks arise commonly in the analysis of cancer studies. Most common are the competing risks of relapse and death in remission. These two risks are the primary reason that patients fail treatment. In most medical papers the effects of covariates on the three outcomes (relapse, death in remission and treatment failure) are model by distinct proportional hazards regression models. Since the hazards of relapse and death in remission must add to that of treatment failure, we argue that this model leads to internal inconsistencies. We argue that additive models for either the hazard rates or the cumulative incidence functions are more natural and that these models properly partition the effect of a covariate on treatment failure into its component parts. We illustrate the use and interpretation of additive models for the hazard rate or for the cumulative incidence function using data from a study of the efficacy of two preparative regimes for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.     

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 accelerated failure time cure rate mixture models with competing risks

Modern medical treatments have substantially improved survival rates for many chronic diseases and have generated considerable interest in developing cure fraction models for survival data with a non‐ignorable cured proportion. Statistical analysis of such data may be further complicated by competing risks that involve multiple types of endpoints. Regression analysis of competing risks is typically undertaken via a proportional hazards model adapted on cause‐specific hazard or subdistribution hazard. In this article, we propose an alternative approach that treats competing events as distinct outcomes in a mixture. We consider semiparametric accelerated failure time models for the cause‐conditional survival function that are combined through a multinomial logistic model within the cure‐mixture modeling framework. The cure‐mixture approach to competing risks provides a means to determine the overall effect of a treatment and insights into how this treatment modifies the components of the mixture in the presence of a cure fraction. The regression and nonparametric parameters are estimated by a nonparametric kernel‐based maximum likelihood estimation method. Variance estimation is achieved through resampling methods for the kernel‐smoothed likelihood function. Simulation studies show that the procedures work well in practical settings. Application to a sarcoma study demonstrates the use of the proposed method for competing risk data with a cure fraction.     

Sample size formula for proportional hazards modelling of competing risks

To test the effect of a therapeutic or prognostic factor on the occurrence of a particular cause of failure in the presence of other causes, the interest has shifted in some studies from the modelling of the cause-specific hazard to that of the subdistribution hazard. We present approximate sample size formulas for the proportional hazards modelling of competing risk subdistribution, considering either independent or correlated covariates. The validity of these approximate formulas is investigated through numerical simulations. Two illustrations are provided, a randomized clinical trial, and a prospective prognostic study.     

Estimation of the adjusted cause-specific cumulative probability using flexible regression models for the cause-specific hazards

In competing risks setting, we account for death according to a specific cause and the quantities of interest are usually the cause-specific hazards (CSHs) and the cause-specific cumulative probabilities. A cause-specific cumulative probability can be obtained with a combination of the CSHs or via the subdistribution hazard. Here, we modeled the CSH with flexible hazard-based regression models using B-splines for the baseline hazard and time-dependent (TD) effects. We derived the variance of the cause-specific cumulative probabilities at the population level using the multivariate delta method and showed how we could easily quantify the impact of a covariate on the cumulative probability scale using covariate-adjusted cause-specific cumulative probabilities and their difference. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of this approach in its ability to estimate the cumulative probabilities using different functions for the cause-specific log baseline hazard and with or without a TD effect. In the scenario with TD effect, we tested both well-specified and misspecified models. We showed that the flexible regression models perform nearly as well as the nonparametric method, if we allow enough flexibility for the baseline hazards. Moreover, neglecting the TD effect hardly affects the cumulative probabilities estimates of the whole population but impacts them in the various subgroups. We illustrated our approach using data from people diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and provided the R-code to derive those quantities, as an extension of the R-package mexhaz .     

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.     

Analysing and interpreting competing risk data

When competing risks are present, two types of analysis can be performed: modelling the cause specific hazard and modelling the hazard of the subdistribution. This paper contrasts these two methods and presents the benefits of each. The interpretation is specific to the analysis performed. When modelling the cause specific hazard, one performs the analysis under the assumption that the competing risks do not exist. This could be beneficial when, for example, the main interest is whether the treatment works in general. In modelling the hazard of the subdistribution, one incorporates the competing risks in the analysis. This analysis compares the observed incidence of the event of interest between groups. The latter analysis is specific to the structure of the observed data and it can be generalized only to another population with similar competing risks.     

Dealing with competing risks: testing covariates and calculating sample size

It is universally agreed that Kaplan-Meier estimates overestimate the probability of the event of interest in the presence of competing risks. Kalbfleisch and Prentice recommend using the cumulative incidence as an estimate of the probability of an event of interest. However, there is no consensus on how to test the effect of a covariate in the presence of competing risks. Using simulations, this paper illustrates that the Cox proportional hazards model gives valid results when employed in testing the effect of a covariate on the hazard rate and when estimating the hazard ratio. A method to calculate the sample size for testing the effect of a covariate on outcome in the presence of competing risks is also provided.     

Incorporating time-dependent covariates in survival analysis using the LVAR method

In survival analysis, use of the Cox proportional hazards model requires knowledge of all covariates under consideration at every failure time. Since failure times rarely coincide with observation times, time-dependent covariates (covariates that vary over time) need to be inferred from the observed values. In this paper, we introduce the last value auto-regressed (LVAR) estimation method and compare it to several other established estimation approaches via a simulation study. The comparison shows that under several time-dependent covariate processes this method results in a smaller mean square error when considering the time-dependent covariate effect.