Literature DB >> 26935618

Survival analysis in clinical practice: analyze your own data using an Excel workbook.

Marko Lucijanić1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 26935618      PMCID: PMC4800329          DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2016.57.77

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Croat Med J        ISSN: 0353-9504            Impact factor:   1.351


× No keyword cloud information.
Questions about patient survival or the time to disease progression are of the greatest interest in everyday clinical practice, especially when analyzing information about your own patients. Such data are censored in nature (have uneven follow-up times and a variable number of patients who are deceased, lost, or still in follow-up) and cannot be adequately summarized or compared unless specially designed statistical methods are utilized. Such methods are referred to as survival analysis.

Survival analysis and log-rank test

Survival analysis presented in this article and its supplementary file (Supplementary material(web extra material 1)) is based on the method by Kaplan and Meier (1). In short, two entries about each patient are required – the duration of patient’s follow-up and the patient’s status regarding the event of interest occurring during the follow-up (binary outcome labeled 1 or 0 depending if the patient is deceased or alive, relapsed or still in remission, etc). During calculations, patients are lined-up depending on the follow-up duration. Every time a patient dies/attains an event of interest, a new time interval is formed (visible later as a drop in the survival curve) and the proportion of patients dying is calculated by dividing the number of deaths (usually 1) with the number of patients at risk (current number of patients in follow-up) at the given time. For every time interval, the cumulative proportion dying is also calculated by multiplying the proportion dying by the proportions dying at all previous intervals (because the patient had to live through the risk of dying at all previous time intervals) and this information is plotted on a survival curve in a step-wise fashion. The proportion dying and the proportion surviving add up to 100% and the proportion surviving/survival curve is easily created in a similar way. Toward the end of the survival curve, every death has a more pronounced impact on survival because it is divided by a smaller number of patients at risk. If the last patient in the follow-up dies, the survival curve reaches the bottom (0% surviving at this time point). However, the main interest is how survival curves differ between two or more groups of patients. Survival curves can be easily compared using the log-rank test (2,3). There are several variations of this test with subtle differences in their calculations, consequently producing slightly different end results, which will be analyzed in detail in another future discussion. In general, the log-rank test uses the total observed and the total expected number of deaths in each group (constructing numbers depending on the number of patients at risk in subsequent time intervals) to derive a test statistic to be later analyzed using the χ2-test. Slopes of survival curves represent hazards or death rates at a given moment of time. It is important to note that the main assumption behind the log-rank test is that hazards are proportional in two groups during time, ie, survival curves do not cross each other. If this is not the case, the log-rank test should not be used to compare two groups over a whole time period. If the assumption of proportional hazards is valid, a special statistic, called the hazard ratio, can be calculated, which describes how many times the risk of dying is increased in one of the groups in comparison to the other.

Using available software

Data analysis of this kind usually requires commercial statistical packages that might not be readily available, at least not in clinical settings or at a specific computer used for data collection. However, most everyday computers are equipped with word processing and spreadsheet software like Microsoft Office or similar toolsets. With this in mind, the author has prepared a workbook for MS Excel program (ver. 2002, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) as a supplementary file accompanying this article. This workbook utilizes the most widely used Cox-Mantel version of the log-rank test to compare survival curves. It has been in development for more than three years and has been tested on several dozen data sets using commercial statistical packages in order to validate the results. Besides its practical purpose of data analysis, it provides users with direct insight into the mechanics of statistical tests and provides a unique “real-time” learning experience.

Data preparation, data entry, survival analysis tips, and hints

Before analysis, your data should be recorded in a spreadsheet with the first row containing the variable names and the subsequent rows containing data entries. Survival data should be presented with one numerical variable representing the survival time and one binary variable (ie, 1 or 0) representing the censoring status (dead = 1, alive or lost to follow up = 0). One or more categorical variables representing the factors of interest that could affect survival are also desirable (ie, “sex” variable with entries like “m” and “f”; “age” variable with entries like 1 for younger than 65 years of age and 2 for older, etc). This workbook compares survival in up to four subgroups inside the variables of interest. In addition, it allows an analysis of data sets with up to 300 data entries. These limitations are deliberately made due to the speed of calculations and increased complexity of calculations occurring with the increased number of comparisons. You are still able to compare the entries with more than four subgroups, but you have to select which subgroups you would like to mutually analyze; with such calculations increased vigilance is necessary as false conclusions are more likely. Data can be simply copy-pasted into the “DATA” sheet, or, in addition, a whole spreadsheet from another workbook can be copied into this one. However, you should select the name of this new spreadsheet in the appropriate cell on the “Analysis” sheet so that the program is able to find your data. Now you can choose the appropriate variables (Time, Status, and Group) from the drop-down menus on the “Analysis” sheet and begin exploring/become acquainted with your data. Two simple data filters have been added, with the ability to select a subset of patients by selecting a preferred variable and a preferred condition (ie, “sex” and “m”). The most useful and most commonly used parameters (number of analyzed patients, median survival time, survival rate at a preferred moment in time, P values, and hazard ratios), as well as survival curves for the whole data set and for subgroups are shown on the main analysis sheet (Figure 1). Other parameters (median follow-up time calculated in three different ways, 95% confidence intervals for survival rates, and hazard ratios calculated in two ways – by log-rank and Mantel-Haenszel methods) can be found on the corresponding sheets containing calculations (“Curves” and “Log-rank”). Notice that when a Group variable is chosen, the survival curve for the whole data set is limited only to entries with known data for a chosen parameter. Produced curves are fully customizable, may be enlarged or reduced, and specific details related to analysis may be easily added. Your results can be printed on a single A4 sheet of paper in landscape orientation.
Figure 1

The “Analysis” sheet is divided into four sections: Select data, Results, Curves Comparison, and Survival Curves. Variables are chosen from drop-down menus, which allows for rapid screening through the data containing categorical variables. The significant result is automatically highlighted. Unpublished “real life” data about patients with multiple myeloma are used for presentation.

The “Analysis” sheet is divided into four sections: Select data, Results, Curves Comparison, and Survival Curves. Variables are chosen from drop-down menus, which allows for rapid screening through the data containing categorical variables. The significant result is automatically highlighted. Unpublished “real life” data about patients with multiple myeloma are used for presentation. Before leaving the reader to sail on the high seas of statistics, several general principles concerning survival analysis should be emphasized. First, survival curves are open-ended if the patient with the longest follow-up is still alive. However, conclusions about surviving after a specific time period should not be drawn from a survival curve if fewer than 5% of all patients are still alive after the time point of interest (to the right of the curve). Second, if the assumption of proportional hazards is roughly violated (if survival curves evidently cross during follow-up) the log-rank test and hazard ratios should not be used to describe relations between data (and they will probably yield an insignificant result). In this situation, other statistical tests would be more appropriate. Third, when more than two subgroups are present inside Group variable, a common P value describing overall effect on survival is provided. Multiple subgroups comparisons are used for post-hoc analysis. However, with multiple simultaneous comparisons (three subgroups = three comparisons, four subgroups = six comparisons), the likelihood of detecting falsely significant result increases and correction in the level of the P value is needed to accommodate for this phenomenon. This workbook uses the widely accepted Bonferroni correction. Significant results in all described settings will be automatically highlighted in light red for ease of detection.

Conclusion

This workbook is primarily intended for practicing clinicians who would like to verify their own performance or quickly analyze their own data sets at the moment when the data are collected. It can be used for hypothesis testing or rapid data screening, the choice is yours to make. I hope clinicians will find this tool practical and use it to improve and publish their own results. If you find it useful, please cite this article when reporting your data. However, prior to publishing, your results should be validated using commercial statistical packag
  1 in total

1.  Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration.

Authors:  N Mantel
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03
  1 in total
  14 in total

1.  Macrophage-mediated anti-tumor immunity against high-risk neuroblastoma.

Authors:  Xao X Tang; Hiroyuki Shimada; Naohiko Ikegaki
Journal:  Genes Immun       Date:  2022-05-07       Impact factor: 4.248

2.  Reduced renal function strongly affects survival and thrombosis in patients with myelofibrosis.

Authors:  Marko Lucijanic; Davor Galusic; Ivan Krecak; Martina Sedinic; Hrvoje Holik; Vlatka Perisa; Martina Moric Peric; Ivan Zekanovic; Tajana Stoos-Veic; Rajko Kusec
Journal:  Ann Hematol       Date:  2020-08-29       Impact factor: 3.673

3.  Assessing serum albumin concentration, lymphocyte count and prognostic nutritional index might improve prognostication in patients with myelofibrosis.

Authors:  Marko Lucijanic; Ivo Veletic; Dario Rahelic; Vlatko Pejsa; David Cicic; Marko Skelin; Ana Livun; Katarina Marija Tupek; Tajana Stoos-Veic; Tomo Lucijanic; Ana Maglicic; Rajko Kusec
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 1.704

4.  Pharmacists' influence on adverse reactions to warfarin: a randomised controlled trial in elderly rural patients.

Authors:  Slaven Falamić; Marko Lucijanić; Maja Ortner-Hadžiabdić; Srećko Marušić; Vesna Bačić-Vrca
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2019-09-07

5.  p63 isoforms in triple-negative breast cancer: ΔNp63 associates with the basal phenotype whereas TAp63 associates with androgen receptor, lack of BRCA mutation, PTEN and improved survival.

Authors:  Philip J Coates; Rudolf Nenutil; Jitka Holcakova; Marta Nekulova; Jan Podhorec; Marek Svoboda; Borivoj Vojtesek
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  Increased mean platelet volume (MPV) is an independent predictor of inferior survival in patients with primary and secondary myelofibrosis.

Authors:  Marko Lucijanic; Zdravko Mitrovic; David Cicic; Zeljko Prka; Vlatko Pejsa; Ana Livun; Tajana Stoos-Veic; Zeljko Romic; Marcela Zivkovic; Iva Lucijanic; Zrinka Fabris; Rajko Kusec
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 2.490

7.  Rituximab with dose-adjusted EPOCH as first-line treatment in patients with highly aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and autologous stem cell transplantation in selected patients.

Authors:  Vlatko Pejša; Željko Prka; Marko Lucijanić; Zdravko Mitrović; Mario Piršić; Ozren Jakšić; Radmila Ajduković; Rajko Kušec
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 1.351

8.  Clinical and prognostic significance of C-reactive protein to albumin ratio in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients : Data on 2309 patients from a tertiary center and validation in an independent cohort.

Authors:  Marko Lucijanić; Josip Stojić; Armin Atić; Tomislav Čikara; Besa Osmani; Mislav Barišić-Jaman; Ana Andrilović; Petra Bistrović; Anamarija Zrilić Vrkljan; Marko Lagančić; Marko Milošević; Ivan Vukoja; Lovorka Đerek; Tomo Lucijanić; Nevenka Piskač Živković
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 2.275

9.  More Pronounced Muscle Loss During Immunochemotherapy is Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma with Unfavorable Features.

Authors:  Marko Lucijanic; Renata Huzjan Korunic; Martina Sedinic; Rajko Kusec; Vlatko Pejsa
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 2.423

10.  Epidemiological and clinical features of primary biliary cholangitis in two Croatian regions: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Anita Madir; Tonći Božin; Ivana Mikolašević; Sandra Milić; Davor Štimac; Maja Mijić; Tajana Filipec Kanižaj; Zrinka Biloglav; Marko Lucijanić; Iva Lucijanić; Ivica Grgurević
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 1.351

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.