Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

The use of restricted mean time lost under competing risks data

Authors: Jingjing Lyu, Yawen Hou, Zheng Chen

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Under competing risks, the commonly used sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) is not easy to interpret clinically and is valid only under the proportional sub-distribution hazard (SDH) assumption. This paper introduces an alternative statistical measure: the restricted mean time lost (RMTL).

Methods

First, the definition and estimation methods of the measures are introduced. Second, based on the differences in RMTLs, a basic difference test (Diff) and a supremum difference test (sDiff) are constructed. Then, the corresponding sample size estimation method is proposed. The statistical properties of the methods and the estimated sample size are evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations, and these methods are also applied to two real examples.

Results

The simulation results show that sDiff performs well and has relatively high test efficiency in most situations. Regarding sample size calculation, sDiff exhibits good performance in various situations. The methods are illustrated using two examples.

Conclusions

RMTL can meaningfully summarize treatment effects for clinical decision making, which can then be reported with the SDH ratio for competing risks data. The proposed sDiff test and the two calculated sample size formulas have wide applicability and can be considered in real data analysis and trial design.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bakoyannis G, Touloumi G. Practical methods for competing risks data: a review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012;21:257–72.CrossRef Bakoyannis G, Touloumi G. Practical methods for competing risks data: a review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012;21:257–72.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Van WC, Mcalister FA. Competing risk bias was common in Kaplan-Meier risk estimates published in prominent medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:170–3.CrossRef Van WC, Mcalister FA. Competing risk bias was common in Kaplan-Meier risk estimates published in prominent medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:170–3.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Lau B, Cole SR, Gange SJ. Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:244–56.CrossRef Lau B, Cole SR, Gange SJ. Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:244–56.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. second ed. New York: Wiley; 2002. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. second ed. New York: Wiley; 2002.
5.
go back to reference Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.CrossRef Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–54.CrossRef Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–54.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Li J, Scheike TH, Zhang MJ. Checking Fine and Gray subdistribution hazards model with cumulative sums of residuals. Lifetime Data Anal. 2015;21:197–217.CrossRef Li J, Scheike TH, Zhang MJ. Checking Fine and Gray subdistribution hazards model with cumulative sums of residuals. Lifetime Data Anal. 2015;21:197–217.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Uno H, Wittes J, Fu H, Solomon SD, Claggett B, Tian L, et al. Alternatives to hazard ratios for comparing the efficacy or safety of therapies in noninferiority studies. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:127–34.CrossRef Uno H, Wittes J, Fu H, Solomon SD, Claggett B, Tian L, et al. Alternatives to hazard ratios for comparing the efficacy or safety of therapies in noninferiority studies. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:127–34.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kim DH, Uno H, Wei LJ. Restricted mean survival time as a measure to interpret clinical trial results. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1179–80.CrossRef Kim DH, Uno H, Wei LJ. Restricted mean survival time as a measure to interpret clinical trial results. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1179–80.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sutradhar R, Austin PC. Relative rates not relative risks: addressing a widespread misinterpretation of hazard ratios. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28:54–7.CrossRef Sutradhar R, Austin PC. Relative rates not relative risks: addressing a widespread misinterpretation of hazard ratios. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28:54–7.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Calkins KL, Canan CE, Moore RD, Lesko CR, Lau B. An application of restricted mean survival time in a competing risks setting: comparing time to ART initiation by injection drug use. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:27.CrossRef Calkins KL, Canan CE, Moore RD, Lesko CR, Lau B. An application of restricted mean survival time in a competing risks setting: comparing time to ART initiation by injection drug use. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:27.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Royston P, Parmar MKB. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med. 2011;30:2409–21.CrossRef Royston P, Parmar MKB. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med. 2011;30:2409–21.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Royston P, Parmar MKB. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:152.CrossRef Royston P, Parmar MKB. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:152.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Mell LK, Jeong JH. Pitfalls of using composite primary end points in the presence of competing risks. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4297–9.CrossRef Mell LK, Jeong JH. Pitfalls of using composite primary end points in the presence of competing risks. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4297–9.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Andersen PK. Decomposition of number of life years lost according to causes of death. Stat Med. 2013;32:5278–85.CrossRef Andersen PK. Decomposition of number of life years lost according to causes of death. Stat Med. 2013;32:5278–85.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Zhao L, Tian L, Claggett B, Pfeffer M, Kim DH, Solomon S, et al. Estimating treatment effect with clinical interpretation from a comparative clinical trial with an end point subject to competing risks. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3:357–8.CrossRef Zhao L, Tian L, Claggett B, Pfeffer M, Kim DH, Solomon S, et al. Estimating treatment effect with clinical interpretation from a comparative clinical trial with an end point subject to competing risks. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3:357–8.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Tai BC, Wee J, Machin D. Analysis and design of randomised clinical trials involving competing risks endpoints. Trials. 2011;12:127.CrossRef Tai BC, Wee J, Machin D. Analysis and design of randomised clinical trials involving competing risks endpoints. Trials. 2011;12:127.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gill RD. Censoring and stochastic integrals. Amsterdam: The Mathematical Center; 1980.CrossRef Gill RD. Censoring and stochastic integrals. Amsterdam: The Mathematical Center; 1980.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Aalen O. Nonparametric estimation of partial transition probabilities in multiple decrement models. Ann Stat. 1978;6:534–45.CrossRef Aalen O. Nonparametric estimation of partial transition probabilities in multiple decrement models. Ann Stat. 1978;6:534–45.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Billingsley P. Converge of probability measures. New York: Wiley; 1968. Billingsley P. Converge of probability measures. New York: Wiley; 1968.
22.
go back to reference Borodin AN, Salminen P. Handbook of brownian motion-facts and formulae. Basel: Birkhauser; 2000. Borodin AN, Salminen P. Handbook of brownian motion-facts and formulae. Basel: Birkhauser; 2000.
23.
go back to reference Eng KH, Kosorok MR. A sample size formula for the supremum log-rank statistic. Biometrics. 2005;61:86–91.CrossRef Eng KH, Kosorok MR. A sample size formula for the supremum log-rank statistic. Biometrics. 2005;61:86–91.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Klein JP, Logan B, Harhoff M, et al. Analyzing survival curves at a fixed point in time. Stat Med. 2007;26(24):4505.CrossRef Klein JP, Logan B, Harhoff M, et al. Analyzing survival curves at a fixed point in time. Stat Med. 2007;26(24):4505.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The use of restricted mean time lost under competing risks data
Authors
Jingjing Lyu
Yawen Hou
Zheng Chen
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01040-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2020 Go to the issue