Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

Testing the treatment effect on competing causes of death in oncology clinical trials

Authors: Federico Rotolo, Stefan Michiels

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chemotherapy is expected to reduce cancer deaths (CD), while possibly being harmful in terms of non-cancer deaths (NCD) because of toxicity. Peto’s log-rank test is popular in the medical literature, but its operating characteristics are barely known. We compared this test to the most common ones in the statistical literature: the cause-specific hazard test and Gray’s test on the hazard of the subdistribution. We investigated for the first time the impact of reclassifications of causes of death (CoD) after recurrences, and of misclassification of CoD.

Methods

We present a simulation study in which we varied the censoring rate and the correlation between CD and NCD times, we generated recurrence times to study the role of the reclassification of CoD, and we added 20% misclassified CoD. We considered four scenarios for the treatment effect: none; none for CD and negative for NCD; positive for CD and none for NCD; positive for CD and negative for NCD. We applied the three tests to a randomized clinical trial evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy in 1,867 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Results

Most often the three tests well preserved their nominal size, Gray’s test did not when the treatment had an effect on the competing CoD. With a high rate of misclassified CoD, Gray’s and the cause-specific tests lost much of their power, whereas the Peto’s test had the highest power. The cause-specific test had inflated size for NCD when the treatment was beneficial for CD with many misclassified CoD, but had the highest power for NCD when the treatment had no effect on CD, and had similar power to Peto’s test for CD when the treatment had no effect on NCD. Gray’s test performed best when the effect on the two CoD was opposite. The higher the censoring, the lower the rejection probabilities of all the tests and the smaller their differences.

Conclusions

In this first head-to-head comparison of the three tests, the cause-specific test often proved to be the most reliable. Comparing results with and without misclassification of the CoD, Peto’s test was the least influenced by the presence of such misclassification.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AV, Flournoy N, Farewell VT, Breslow NE: The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics. 1978, 34 (4): 541-554. 10.2307/2530374.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Gooley T, Leisenring W, Crowley J, Storer B: Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators. Stat Med. 1999, 30 (6): 695-705. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-02581999033018:6<695::AID-SIM60>3.0.CO;2-O,CrossRef
3.
Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB: Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med. 2007, 26 (11): 2389-430. 10.1002/sim.2712. doi:10.1002/sim.2712,CrossRefPubMed
4.
Allignol A, Schumacher M, Wanner C, Drechsler C, Beyersmann J: Understanding competing risks: a simulation point of view. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011, 11 (1): 86-10.1186/1471-2288-11-86. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-86,CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Koller M, Raatz H, Steyerberg E, Wolbers M: Competing risks and the clinical community: irrelevance or ignorance?. Stat Med. 2012, 31 (11–12): 1089-1097. doi:10.1002/sim.4384,CrossRefPubMed
6.
Klein JP, Shu YY: Multi-state models for bone marrow transplantation studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002, 11: 117-139. 10.1191/0962280202sm277ra. doi:10.1191/0962280202sm277ra,CrossRefPubMed
7.
Lim H, Zhang X, Dyck R, Osgood N: Methods of competing risks analysis of end-stage renal disease and mortality among people with diabetes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10 (1): 97-10.1186/1471-2288-10-97. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-97,CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Deslandes E, Chevret S: Joint modeling of multivariate longitudinal data and the dropout process in a competing risk setting: application to icu data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10 (1): 69-10.1186/1471-2288-10-69. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-69,CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Chappell R: Competing risk analyses: how are they different and why should you care?. Clin Cancer Res. 2012, 18 (8): 2127-2129. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0455. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0455,CrossRefPubMed
10.
Dignam JJ, Zhang Q, Kocherginsky M: The use and interpretation of competing risks regression models. Clin Cancer Res. 2012, 18 (8): 2301-2308. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2097. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2097,CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Rauch G, Kieser M, Ulrich S, Doherty P, Rauch B, Schneider S, Riemer T, Senges J: Competing time-to-event endpoints in cardiology trials: a simulation study to illustrate the importance of an adequate statistical analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014, 21 (1): 74-80. 10.1177/2047487312460518. doi:10.1177/2047487312460518,CrossRefPubMed
12.
Pintilie M: Competing Risks: A Practical Perspective. 2006, New York: Wiley, doi:10.1002/9780470870709CrossRef
13.
Gaynor JJ, Feuer EJ, Tan CC, Wu DH, Little CR, Straus DJ, Clarkson BD, Brennan MF: On the use of cause-specific failure and conditional failure probabilities: examples from clinical oncology data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993, 88 (422): 400-409. 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476289. doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10476289,CrossRef
14.
Gray RJ: A class of k-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988, 16 (3): 1141-1154. 10.1214/aos/1176350951.CrossRef
15.
Fine JP, Gray RJ: A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999, 94 (446): 496-509. 10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144.CrossRef
16.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: Worldwide Evidence 1985–1990, vol. 1. 1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press
17.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Effects of radiotherapy and surgery in early breast cancer – an overview of the randomized trials. New Engl J Med. 1995, 333 (22): 1444-1456. doi:10.1056/NEJM199511303332202,CrossRef
18.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 1998, 351 (9114): 1451-1467. doi:10.1016/S0140-67369711423-4,CrossRef
19.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005, 365: 1687-1717. doi:10.1016/S0140-67360566544-0,CrossRef
20.
Bourhis J, Overgaard J, Audry H, Ang KK, Saunders M, Bernier J, Horiot J-C, Maître AL, Pajak TF, Poulsen MG, O’Sullivan B, Dobrowsky W, Hliniak A, Skladowski K, Hay JH, Pinto LH, Fallai C, Fu KK, Sylvester R, Pignon J-P: Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006, 368 (9538): 843-854. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69121-6. doi:10.1016/S0140-67360669121-6,CrossRefPubMed
21.
Pignon J, Bourhis J, Domenge C, Designé L: Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. Lancet. 2000, 355 (9208): 949-955. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90011-4. doi:10.1016/S0140-67360090011-4,CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pignon J-P, le Maître A, Maillard E, Bourhis J: Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346 patients. Radiother Oncol. 2009, 92 (1): 4-14. 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.04.014. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.04.014,CrossRefPubMed
23.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005, 366 (9503): 2087l-doi:10.1016/S0140-67360567887-7,CrossRef
24.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011, 378 (9793): 771-784. doi:10.1016/S0140-67361160993-8,CrossRef
25.
Dignam JJ, Kocherginsky MN: Choice and interpretation of statistical tests used when competing risks are present. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26 (24): 4027-4034. 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9866. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9866,CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Pintilie M: Dealing with competing risks: testing covariates and calculating sample size. Stat Med. 2002, 21 (22): 3317-3324. 10.1002/sim.1271. doi:10.1002/sim.1271,CrossRefPubMed
27.
Freidlin B, Korn EL: Testing treatment effects in the presence of competing risks. Stat Med. 2005, 24 (11): 1703-1712. 10.1002/sim.2054. doi:10.1002/sim.2054,CrossRefPubMed
28.
Williamson PR, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Tudur Smith C: The influence of competing-risks setting on the choice of hypothesis test for treatment effect. Biostatistics. 2007, 8 (4): 689-694. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxl040,CrossRefPubMed
29.
Ruan PK, Gray RJ: A method for analyzing disease-specific mortality with missing cause of death information. Lifetime Data Anal. 2006, 12 (1): 35-51. 10.1007/s10985-005-7219-2. doi:10.1007/s10985-005-7219-2,CrossRefPubMed
30.
International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Collaborative Group: Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer. New Engl J Med. 2004, 350 (4): 351-doi:10.1056/NEJMoa031644,CrossRef
31.
Arriagada R, Dunant A, Pignon J-P, Bergman B, Chabowski M, Grunenwald D, Kozlowski M, Le Péchoux C, Pirker R, Pinel M-IS, Tarayre M, Le Chevalier T: Long-Term results of the international adjuvant lung cancer trial evaluating adjuvant Cisplatin-Based chemotherapy in resected lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28 (1): 35-42. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.2272. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.23.2272,CrossRefPubMed
32.
Nelson W: Theory and applications of hazard plotting for censored failure data. Technometrics. 1972, 14 (4): 945-966. 10.1080/00401706.1972.10488991. doi:10.1080/00401706.1972.10488991,CrossRef
33.
Aalen O: Nonparametric inference for a family of counting processes. Ann Stat. 1978, 6 (3): 701-726. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344198,CrossRef
34.
Aalen OO, Johansen S: An empirical transition matrix for non-homogeneous markov chains based on censored observations. Scand J Stat. 1978, 5 (3): 141-150.
35.
Moreno-Betancur M, Latouche A: Regression modeling of the cumulative incidence function with missing causes of failure using pseudo-values. Stat Med. 2013, 32 (18): 3206-3223. 10.1002/sim.5755. doi:10.1002/sim.5755,CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Testing the treatment effect on competing causes of death in oncology clinical trials
Authors
Federico Rotolo
Stefan Michiels
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-72

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research article

Challenges and strategies for cohort retention and data collection in an indigenous population: Australian Aboriginal Birth Cohort

Research article

Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools

Research article

A modified Wald interval for the area under the ROC curve (AUC) in diagnostic case-control studies

Research article

Concordance between medical records and interview data in correctional facilities

Research article

A test for reporting bias in trial networks: simulation and case studies

Research article

Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records