Literature DB >> 15706579

Testing treatment effects in the presence of competing risks.

Boris Freidlin1, Edward L Korn.   

Abstract

Competing risks are often encountered in clinical research. In the presence of multiple failure types, the time to the first failure of any type is typically used as an overall measure of the clinical impact for the patients. On the other hand, use of endpoints based on the type of failure directly related to the treatment mechanism of action allows one to focus on the aspect of the disease targeted by treatment. We review the methodology commonly used for testing failure specific treatment effects. Simulation results demonstrate that the cause-specific log-rank test is robust (in the sense of preserving the nominal level of the test) and has good power properties for testing for differences in the marginal latent failure-time distributions, whereas the use of a popular cumulative incidence based approach may be problematic for this aim.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15706579     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  16 in total

1.  Assessing treatment benefit with competing risks not affected by the randomized treatment.

Authors:  Edward L Korn; James J Dignam; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  The use and interpretation of competing risks regression models.

Authors:  James J Dignam; Qiang Zhang; Masha Kocherginsky
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Dealing with competing risks in clinical trials: How to choose the primary efficacy analysis?

Authors:  James F Troendle; Eric S Leifer; Lauren Kunz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial.

Authors:  David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Joseph P Costantino; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh Mc Scarth; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Alone to Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation and Consolidative Extracranial Irradiation for Extensive-Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer (ED SCLC): NRG Oncology RTOG 0937.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Gore; Chen Hu; Alexander Y Sun; Daniel F Grimm; Suresh S Ramalingam; Neal E Dunlap; Kristin A Higgins; Maria Werner-Wasik; Aaron M Allen; Puneeth Iyengar; Gregory M M Videtic; Russell K Hales; Ronald C McGarry; James J Urbanic; Anthony T Pu; Candice A Johnstone; Volker W Stieber; Rebecca Paulus; Jeffrey D Bradley
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27.

Authors:  Eleftherios P Mamounas; Stewart J Anderson; James J Dignam; Harry D Bear; Thomas B Julian; Charles E Geyer; Alphonse Taghian; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Hemoglobin A1c Level and Cardiovascular Disease Incidence in Persons With Type 1 Diabetes: An Application of Joint Modeling of Longitudinal and Time-to-Event Data in the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study.

Authors:  Rachel G Miller; Stewart J Anderson; Tina Costacou; Akira Sekikawa; Trevor J Orchard
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Choice and interpretation of statistical tests used when competing risks are present.

Authors:  James J Dignam; Maria N Kocherginsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Analysis and design of randomised clinical trials involving competing risks endpoints.

Authors:  Bee-Choo Tai; Joseph Wee; David Machin
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Empirical comparison of methods for analyzing multiple time-to-event outcomes in a non-inferiority trial: a breast cancer study.

Authors:  Sameer Parpia; Lehana Thabane; Jim A Julian; Timothy J Whelan; Mark N Levine
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.