Literature DB >> 28251126

Survival analysis in the presence of competing risks.

Zhongheng Zhang1.   

Abstract

Survival analysis in the presence of competing risks imposes additional challenges for clinical investigators in that hazard function (the rate) has no one-to-one link to the cumulative incidence function (CIF, the risk). CIF is of particular interest and can be estimated non-parametrically with the use cuminc() function. This function also allows for group comparison and visualization of estimated CIF. The effect of covariates on cause-specific hazard can be explored using conventional Cox proportional hazard model by treating competing events as censoring. However, the effect on hazard cannot be directly linked to the effect on CIF because there is no one-to-one correspondence between hazard and cumulative incidence. Fine-Gray model directly models the covariate effect on CIF and it reports subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR). However, SHR only provide information on the ordering of CIF curves at different levels of covariates, it has no practical interpretation as HR in the absence of competing risks. Fine-Gray model can be fit with crr() function shipped with the cmprsk package. Time-varying covariates are allowed in the crr() function, which is specified by cov2 and tf arguments. Predictions and visualization of CIF for subjects with given covariate values are allowed for crr object. Alternatively, competing risk models can be fit with riskRegression package by employing different link functions between covariates and outcomes. The assumption of proportionality can be checked by testing statistical significance of interaction terms involving failure time. Schoenfeld residuals provide another way to check model assumption.

Keywords:  Competing risk; Fine-Gary model; cumulative incidence; hazard function

Year:  2017        PMID: 28251126      PMCID: PMC5326634          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2016.08.62

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  10 in total

1.  Interpretability and importance of functionals in competing risks and multistate models.

Authors:  Per Kragh Andersen; Niels Keiding
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls.

Authors:  Per Kragh Andersen; Ronald B Geskus; Theo de Witte; Hein Putter
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 3.  Applying competing risks regression models: an overview.

Authors:  Bernhard Haller; Georg Schmidt; Kurt Ulm
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 1.588

4.  Regression modeling of competing risk using R: an in depth guide for clinicians.

Authors:  L Scrucca; A Santucci; F Aversa
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 5.483

5.  Lumen nonpatency in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  Zhongheng Zhang; Lifei Pan; Hongying Ni
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 6.  A competing risks analysis should report results on all cause-specific hazards and cumulative incidence functions.

Authors:  Aurelien Latouche; Arthur Allignol; Jan Beyersmann; Myriam Labopin; Jason P Fine
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  Practical methods for competing risks data: a review.

Authors:  Giorgos Bakoyannis; Giota Touloumi
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  Heparin or 0.9% sodium chloride to maintain central venous catheter patency: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Marilyn E Schallom; Donna Prentice; Carrie Sona; Scott T Micek; Lee P Skrupky
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Absolute risk regression for competing risks: interpretation, link functions, and prediction.

Authors:  Thomas A Gerds; Thomas H Scheike; Per K Andersen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 10.  A note on competing risks in survival data analysis.

Authors:  J M Satagopan; L Ben-Porat; M Berwick; M Robson; D Kutler; A D Auerbach
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-10-04       Impact factor: 7.640

  10 in total
  30 in total

1.  Establishment and validation of a nomogram model for predicting the survival probability of differentiated thyroid carcinoma patients: a comparison with the eighth edition AJCC cancer staging system.

Authors:  Ruyi Zhang; Mei Xu; Xiangxiang Liu; Miao Wang; Qiang Jia; Shen Wang; Xiangqian Zheng; Xianghui He; Chao Huang; Yaguang Fan; Heng Wu; Ke Xu; Dihua Li; Zhaowei Meng
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 3.633

2.  Use of time-varying coefficients in a Cox regression model when the proportional hazard assumption is violated.

Authors:  Maofeng Wang; Weimin Li; Nadir Yehya; Garrett Keim; Neal J Thomas
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Radiomics as prognostic factor in brain metastases treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery.

Authors:  Chih-Ying Huang; Cheng-Chia Lee; Huai-Che Yang; Chung-Jung Lin; Hsiu-Mei Wu; Wen-Yuh Chung; Cheng-Ying Shiau; Wan-Yuo Guo; David Hung-Chi Pan; Syu-Jyun Peng
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 4.130

4.  Nomogram for survival analysis in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  Zhongheng Zhang; Ronald B Geskus; Michael W Kattan; Haoyang Zhang; Tongyu Liu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-10

5.  Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin does not predict acute kidney injury in heart failure.

Authors:  Fiorenza Ferrari; Elisa Scalzotto; Pasquale Esposito; Sara Samoni; Flavio Mistrorigo; Lilia Maria Rizo Topete; Massimo De Cal; Grazia Maria Virzì; Valentina Corradi; Rossella Torregrossa; Roberto Valle; Stefania Bianzina; Nadia Aspromonte; Matteo Floris; Alessandro Fontanelli; Alessandra Brendolan; Claudio Ronco
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 1.337

6.  Survival of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients continues to improve over time, even in targeted therapy era.

Authors:  Michele Marchioni; Marco Bandini; Raisa S Pompe; Zhe Tian; Tristan Martel; Anil Kapoor; Luca Cindolo; Francesco Berardinelli; Alberto Briganti; Shahrokh F Shariat; Luigi Schips; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 2.370

7.  A Promising Esophageal Cancer Prognostic Signature of Ferroptosis-Related LncRNA to Predict Immune Scenery and Immunotherapy Response.

Authors:  Xiaoxiao Liu; Xiaobo Shi; Wei Guo; Yue Ke; Yuxing Li; Shupei Pan; Xiaona Li; Mei Liu; Mingzhu Liu; Yuchen Wang; Qinli Ruan; Hongbing Ma
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2021-09-18

8.  An examination of the prospective association between religious service attendance and suicide: Explanatory factors and period effects.

Authors:  Evan M Kleiman; Richard T Liu
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 4.839

9.  Prognostic Score-Based Stratification Analysis Reveals Universal Benefits of Radiotherapy on Lowering the Risk of Ipsilateral Breast Event for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Patients with Different Risk Levels.

Authors:  Libo Yang; Dongli Lu; Yutian Lai; Mengjia Shen; Qiuxiao Yu; Ting Lei; Tianjie Pu; Hong Bu
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Bloodstream infections in head and neck cancer patients after curative-intent radiotherapy: a population-based study from the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group database.

Authors:  Kristian Hastoft Jensen; Ivan Vogelius; Claus Ernst Moser; Elo Andersen; Jesper Grau Eriksen; Jørgen Johansen; Mohammad Farhadi; Maria Andersen; Jens Overgaard; Jeppe Friborg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.