C Ay1, F Posch, A Kaider, C Zielinski, I Pabinger. 1. Clinical Division of Haematology and Haemostaseology, Department of Medicine I, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In studies on cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE), patients not only are at risk for VTE but also may die from their underlying malignancy. OBJECTIVES: In this competing-risk (CR) scenario, we systematically compared the performance of standard (Kaplan-Meier estimator [1-KM]), log-rank test, and Cox model) and specific CR methods for time-to-VTE analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer patients (1542) were prospectively followed for a median of 24 months. VTE occurred in 112 (7.3%) patients, and 572 (37.1%) patients died. RESULTS: In comparison with the CR method, 1-KM slightly overestimated the cumulative incidence of VTE (cumulative VTE incidence at 12 and 24 months [1-KM vs. CR]: 7.22% vs. 6.74%, and 8.40% vs. 7.54%, respectively). Greater bias was revealed in tumor entities with high early mortality (e.g., pancreatic cancer, n = 99, 24-month cumulative VTE incidence: 28.37% vs. 19.30%). Comparing the (subdistribution) hazard of VTE between patients with low and high baseline D-dimer, the Cox model yielded a higher estimate than the corresponding CR model (hazard vs. subdistribution hazard ratio [95% CI] 2.85 [1.92-4.21] vs. 2.47 [1.67-3.65]). For this comparison, the log-rank test yielded a higher test statistic and smaller P-value than Gray's test (χ(2) on 1 degree of freedom: 29.88 vs. 21.34). CONCLUSION: In patients with cancer who are at risk for VTE and death, standard and CR methods for time-to-VTE analysis can generate differing results. For 1-KM, the magnitude of bias is a direct function of competing mortality. Consequently, bias tends to be negligible in cancer patient populations with low mortality but can be considerable in populations at high risk of death.
BACKGROUND: In studies on cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE), patients not only are at risk for VTE but also may die from their underlying malignancy. OBJECTIVES: In this competing-risk (CR) scenario, we systematically compared the performance of standard (Kaplan-Meier estimator [1-KM]), log-rank test, and Cox model) and specific CR methods for time-to-VTE analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer patients (1542) were prospectively followed for a median of 24 months. VTE occurred in 112 (7.3%) patients, and 572 (37.1%) patients died. RESULTS: In comparison with the CR method, 1-KM slightly overestimated the cumulative incidence of VTE (cumulative VTE incidence at 12 and 24 months [1-KM vs. CR]: 7.22% vs. 6.74%, and 8.40% vs. 7.54%, respectively). Greater bias was revealed in tumor entities with high early mortality (e.g., pancreatic cancer, n = 99, 24-month cumulative VTE incidence: 28.37% vs. 19.30%). Comparing the (subdistribution) hazard of VTE between patients with low and high baseline D-dimer, the Cox model yielded a higher estimate than the corresponding CR model (hazard vs. subdistribution hazard ratio [95% CI] 2.85 [1.92-4.21] vs. 2.47 [1.67-3.65]). For this comparison, the log-rank test yielded a higher test statistic and smaller P-value than Gray's test (χ(2) on 1 degree of freedom: 29.88 vs. 21.34). CONCLUSION: In patients with cancer who are at risk for VTE and death, standard and CR methods for time-to-VTE analysis can generate differing results. For 1-KM, the magnitude of bias is a direct function of competing mortality. Consequently, bias tends to be negligible in cancer patient populations with low mortality but can be considerable in populations at high risk of death.
Authors: Cihan Ay; Daniela Dunkler; Robert Pirker; Johannes Thaler; Peter Quehenberger; Oswald Wagner; Christoph Zielinski; Ingrid Pabinger Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Giancarlo Agnelli; Daniel J George; Ajay K Kakkar; William Fisher; Michael R Lassen; Patrick Mismetti; Patrick Mouret; Umesh Chaudhari; Francesca Lawson; Alexander G G Turpie Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Agnes Y Y Lee; Mark N Levine; Ross I Baker; Chris Bowden; Ajay K Kakkar; Martin Prins; Frederick R Rickles; Jim A Julian; Susan Haley; Michael J Kovacs; Michael Gent Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ingrid Pabinger; Nick van Es; Georg Heinze; Florian Posch; Julia Riedl; Eva-Maria Reitter; Marcello Di Nisio; Gabriela Cesarman-Maus; Noémie Kraaijpoel; Christoph Carl Zielinski; Harry Roger Büller; Cihan Ay Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: L-M Mauracher; F Posch; K Martinod; E Grilz; T Däullary; L Hell; C Brostjan; C Zielinski; C Ay; D D Wagner; I Pabinger; J Thaler Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Julia Riedl; Matthias Preusser; Pegah Mir Seyed Nazari; Florian Posch; Simon Panzer; Christine Marosi; Peter Birner; Johannes Thaler; Christine Brostjan; Daniela Lötsch; Walter Berger; Johannes A Hainfellner; Ingrid Pabinger; Cihan Ay Journal: Blood Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Yohei Hisada; Kenison B Garratt; Anaum Maqsood; Steven P Grover; Tomohiro Kawano; Brian C Cooley; Jonathan Erlich; Florian Moik; Matthew J Flick; Ingrid Pabinger; Nigel Mackman; Cihan Ay Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-01-26