Literature DB >> 26194988

A versatile test for equality of two survival functions based on weighted differences of Kaplan-Meier curves.

Hajime Uno1, Lu Tian2, Brian Claggett3, L J Wei4.   

Abstract

With censored event time observations, the logrank test is the most popular tool for testing the equality of two underlying survival distributions. Although this test is asymptotically distribution free, it may not be powerful when the proportional hazards assumption is violated. Various other novel testing procedures have been proposed, which generally are derived by assuming a class of specific alternative hypotheses with respect to the hazard functions. The test considered by Pepe and Fleming (1989) is based on a linear combination of weighted differences of the two Kaplan-Meier curves over time and is a natural tool to assess the difference of two survival functions directly. In this article, we take a similar approach but choose weights that are proportional to the observed standardized difference of the estimated survival curves at each time point. The new proposal automatically makes weighting adjustments empirically. The new test statistic is aimed at a one-sided general alternative hypothesis and is distributed with a short right tail under the null hypothesis but with a heavy tail under the alternative. The results from extensive numerical studies demonstrate that the new procedure performs well under various general alternatives with a caution of a minor inflation of the type I error rate when the sample size is small or the number of observed events is small. The survival data from a recent cancer comparative study are utilized for illustrating the implementation of the process.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  logrank test; perturbation resampling method; proportional hazards; robust tests

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26194988      PMCID: PMC4626406          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6591

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


  14 in total

1.  Sequential methods for comparing years of life saved in the two-sample censored data problem.

Authors:  S Murray; A A Tsiatis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Combining dependent tests for linkage or association across multiple phenotypic traits.

Authors:  Xin Xu; Lu Tian; L J Wei
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  An adaptive weighted log-rank test with application to cancer prevention and screening trials.

Authors:  S G Self
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Mahesh K B Parmar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Permutational distribution of the log-rank statistic under random censorship with applications to carcinogenicity assays.

Authors:  G Heimann; G Neuhaus
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Semiparametric inference on the absolute risk reduction and the restricted mean survival difference.

Authors:  Song Yang
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 1.588

7.  Weighted Kaplan-Meier statistics: a class of distance tests for censored survival data.

Authors:  M S Pepe; T R Fleming
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Properties of proportional-hazards score tests under misspecified regression models.

Authors:  S W Lagakos; D A Schoenfeld
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Improved logrank-type tests for survival data using adaptive weights.

Authors:  Song Yang; Ross Prentice
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-04-13       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  S Vincent Rajkumar; Susanna Jacobus; Natalie S Callander; Rafael Fonseca; David H Vesole; Michael E Williams; Rafat Abonour; David S Siegel; Michael Katz; Philip R Greipp
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  5 in total

1.  Efficiency of two sample tests via the restricted mean survival time for analyzing event time observations.

Authors:  Lu Tian; Haoda Fu; Stephen J Ruberg; Hajime Uno; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Statistical Considerations for Sequential Analysis of the Restricted Mean Survival Time for Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Ying Lu; Lu Tian
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 1.452

3.  Design for immuno-oncology clinical trials enrolling both responders and nonresponders.

Authors:  Zhenzhen Xu; Bin Zhu; Yongsoek Park
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Mahesh K B Parmar
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Treating non-responders: pitfalls and implications for cancer immunotherapy trial design.

Authors:  Zhenzhen Xu; Yongsoek Park; Ke Liu; Bin Zhu
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 17.388

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.