Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Biomarkers | Research article

Understanding the predictive value of continuous markers for censored survival data using a likelihood ratio approach

Authors: Andrew M. Smith, John P. Christodouleas, Wei-Ting Hwang

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The likelihood ratio function (LR), the ratio of conditional probabilities of obtaining a specific marker value among those with the event of interest over those without, provides an easily interpretable way to quantify the update of the risk prediction due to the knowledge of the marker value. The LR has been explored for both binary and continuous markers for binary events (e.g., diseased or not), however the use of the LR in censored data has not been fully explored.

Methods

We extend the concept of LR to a time-dependent LR (TD-LR) for survival outcomes that are subject to censoring. Estimation for the TD-LR is done using Kaplan-Meier estimation and a univariate Cox proportional hazards (PH) model. A “scale invariant” approach based on marker quantiles is provided to allow comparison of predictive values between markers with different scales. Relationships to time-dependent receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curve (AUC), and optimal cut-off values are considered.

Results

The proposed methods were applied to data from a bladder cancer clinical trial to determine whether the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a valuable biomarker for predicting overall survival following surgery or combined chemotherapy and surgery. The TD-LR method yielded results consistent with the original findings while providing an easily interpretable three-dimensional surface display of how NLR related to the likelihood of event in the trial data.

Conclusions

The TD-LR provides a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between continuous markers and the likelihood of events in censored survival data. This method also allows more straightforward communication with a clinical audience through graphical presentation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ebell M, Call M, Shinholser J, Gardner J. Does This Patient Have Infectious Mononucleosis?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review. J Am Med Assoc. 2016; 315(14):1502–9.CrossRef Ebell M, Call M, Shinholser J, Gardner J. Does This Patient Have Infectious Mononucleosis?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review. J Am Med Assoc. 2016; 315(14):1502–9.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Grossman H, Natale R, Tangen C, Spreights V, Vogelzang N, Trump D, deVere White R, et al.Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy plus Cystectomy Compared with Cystectomy Alone for Locally Advanced Bladder Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(9):859–66.CrossRef Grossman H, Natale R, Tangen C, Spreights V, Vogelzang N, Trump D, deVere White R, et al.Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy plus Cystectomy Compared with Cystectomy Alone for Locally Advanced Bladder Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(9):859–66.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Herr H, Faulkner J, Grossman H, Natale R, devere White R, Sarosdy M, et al.Surgical Factors Influence Bladder Cancer Outcomes: A Cooperative Group Report. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(14):2781–9.CrossRef Herr H, Faulkner J, Grossman H, Natale R, devere White R, Sarosdy M, et al.Surgical Factors Influence Bladder Cancer Outcomes: A Cooperative Group Report. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(14):2781–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995; 90(430):773–95.CrossRef Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995; 90(430):773–95.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference van der Helm H, Hische E. E. Application of Bayes’ Theorem to Results of Quantitative Clinical Chemical Determinations. Clinical Chemistry. 1979; 25(6):985–8.PubMed van der Helm H, Hische E. E. Application of Bayes’ Theorem to Results of Quantitative Clinical Chemical Determinations. Clinical Chemistry. 1979; 25(6):985–8.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Vecchio T. Predictive Value of A Single Diagnostic Test in Unselected Populations. N Engl J Med. 1966; 274(21):1171–3.CrossRef Vecchio T. Predictive Value of A Single Diagnostic Test in Unselected Populations. N Engl J Med. 1966; 274(21):1171–3.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gu W, Pepe M. Estimating the diagnostic likelihood ratio of a continuous marker. Biostatistics. 2010; 12(1):87–101.CrossRef Gu W, Pepe M. Estimating the diagnostic likelihood ratio of a continuous marker. Biostatistics. 2010; 12(1):87–101.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kaplan E, Meier P. Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958; 53(282):457–81.CrossRef Kaplan E, Meier P. Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958; 53(282):457–81.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Cox DR. Regression Models and Life-Tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1972; 34(2):187–220. Cox DR. Regression Models and Life-Tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1972; 34(2):187–220.
10.
go back to reference Kalbfleisch J, Prentice R. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, Second Ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 2002.CrossRef Kalbfleisch J, Prentice R. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, Second Ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 2002.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Tsiatis A. A Large Sample Study of Cox’s Regression Model. Ann Stat. 1981; 9(1):93–108.CrossRef Tsiatis A. A Large Sample Study of Cox’s Regression Model. Ann Stat. 1981; 9(1):93–108.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference van der Vaart A. Asymptotic Statistics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRef van der Vaart A. Asymptotic Statistics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Peterson A. Expressing the Kaplan-Meier Estimator as a Function of Empirical Subsurvival Functions. J Am Stat Assoc. 1977; 72(360):854–8.CrossRef Peterson A. Expressing the Kaplan-Meier Estimator as a Function of Empirical Subsurvival Functions. J Am Stat Assoc. 1977; 72(360):854–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Casella G, Berger R. Statistical Inference, Second Ed. California: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning; 2002. Casella G, Berger R. Statistical Inference, Second Ed. California: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning; 2002.
15.
go back to reference Pepe M, Longton G. Standardizing Diagnostic Markers to Evaluate and Compare Their Performance. Epidemiology. 2005; 16(5):598–603.CrossRef Pepe M, Longton G. Standardizing Diagnostic Markers to Evaluate and Compare Their Performance. Epidemiology. 2005; 16(5):598–603.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Pepe M, Cai T. The Analysis of Placement Values for Evaluating Discriminatory Measures. Biometrics. 2004; 60(2):528–35.CrossRef Pepe M, Cai T. The Analysis of Placement Values for Evaluating Discriminatory Measures. Biometrics. 2004; 60(2):528–35.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cortese G, Andersen P. Competing Risks and Time-Dependent Covariates. Biom J. 2009; 51(6):138–58. Cortese G, Andersen P. Competing Risks and Time-Dependent Covariates. Biom J. 2009; 51(6):138–58.
18.
go back to reference van Houwelingen H. Dynamic Prediction by Landmarking in Event History Analysis. Scand J Stat. 2006; 34(1):70–85.CrossRef van Houwelingen H. Dynamic Prediction by Landmarking in Event History Analysis. Scand J Stat. 2006; 34(1):70–85.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Zou K, O’Malley J, Mauri L. Receiver-Operating Characteristic Analysis for Evaluating Diagnostic Tests and Predictive Models. Circulation. 2007; 115(5):654–657.CrossRef Zou K, O’Malley J, Mauri L. Receiver-Operating Characteristic Analysis for Evaluating Diagnostic Tests and Predictive Models. Circulation. 2007; 115(5):654–657.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Baker S. The Central Role of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves in Evaluating Tests for the Early Detection of Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95(7):511–5.CrossRef Baker S. The Central Role of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves in Evaluating Tests for the Early Detection of Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95(7):511–5.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Heagerty P, Lumley T, Pepe M. Time-Dependent ROC Curves for Censored Survival Data and a Diagnostic Marker. Biometrics. 2000; 56(2):337–44.CrossRef Heagerty P, Lumley T, Pepe M. Time-Dependent ROC Curves for Censored Survival Data and a Diagnostic Marker. Biometrics. 2000; 56(2):337–44.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hung H, Chiang CT. Estimation methods for time-dependent AUC models with survival data. Can J Stat. 2010; 38(1):8–26. Hung H, Chiang CT. Estimation methods for time-dependent AUC models with survival data. Can J Stat. 2010; 38(1):8–26.
23.
go back to reference Hermanns T, Bhindi B, Wei Y, Yu J, Noon A, Richard P, et al.Pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictor of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinmoa of the bladder. Br J Cancer. 2014; 111(3):444–51.CrossRef Hermanns T, Bhindi B, Wei Y, Yu J, Noon A, Richard P, et al.Pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictor of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinmoa of the bladder. Br J Cancer. 2014; 111(3):444–51.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Viers B, Boorjian S, Frank I, Tarrell R, Thapa P, Karnes R, et al.Pretreatment Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Is Associated with Advanced Pathologic Tumor Stage and Increased Cancer-specific Mortality Among Patients with Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder Undergoing Radical Cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(6):1157–64.CrossRef Viers B, Boorjian S, Frank I, Tarrell R, Thapa P, Karnes R, et al.Pretreatment Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Is Associated with Advanced Pathologic Tumor Stage and Increased Cancer-specific Mortality Among Patients with Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder Undergoing Radical Cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(6):1157–64.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Gondo T, Nakashima J, Ohno Y, Choichiro O, Horiguchi Y, Namiki K, et al.Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Establishment of Novel Preoperative Risk Stratification Model in Bladder Cancer Patients Treated With Radical Cystectomy. Urology. 2012; 79(5):1085–91.CrossRef Gondo T, Nakashima J, Ohno Y, Choichiro O, Horiguchi Y, Namiki K, et al.Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Establishment of Novel Preoperative Risk Stratification Model in Bladder Cancer Patients Treated With Radical Cystectomy. Urology. 2012; 79(5):1085–91.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference McShane L, Altman D, Sauer W, Taube S, Gion M, Clark G. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005; 2(8):416–22.CrossRef McShane L, Altman D, Sauer W, Taube S, Gion M, Clark G. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005; 2(8):416–22.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Altman D, McShane L, Sauerbrei W, Taube S. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration. PLOS Med. 2012; 9(5):1–32.CrossRef Altman D, McShane L, Sauerbrei W, Taube S. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration. PLOS Med. 2012; 9(5):1–32.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Ojerholm E, Smith A, Hwang WT, Baumann B, Tucker K, Lerner S, et al.Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Bladder CancerBiomarker: Assessing Prognostic and PredictiveValue in SWOG 8710. Cancer. 2016; 123(5):794–801.CrossRef Ojerholm E, Smith A, Hwang WT, Baumann B, Tucker K, Lerner S, et al.Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Bladder CancerBiomarker: Assessing Prognostic and PredictiveValue in SWOG 8710. Cancer. 2016; 123(5):794–801.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Understanding the predictive value of continuous markers for censored survival data using a likelihood ratio approach
Authors
Andrew M. Smith
John P. Christodouleas
Wei-Ting Hwang
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Biomarkers
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0721-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue