Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Lifetime Data Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For time-to-event data, when the hazards are non-proportional, in addition to the hazard ratio, the absolute risk reduction and the restricted mean survival difference can be used to describe the time-dependent treatment effect. The absolute risk reduction measures the direct impact of the treatment on event rate or survival, and the restricted mean survival difference provides a way to evaluate the cumulative treatment effect. However, in the literature, available methods are limited for flexibly estimating these measures and making inference on them. In this article, point estimates, pointwise confidence intervals and simultaneous confidence bands of the absolute risk reduction and the restricted mean survival difference are established under a semiparametric model that can be used in a sufficiently wide range of applications. These methods are motivated by and illustrated for data from the Women’s Health Initiative estrogen plus progestin clinical trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bie O, Borgan O, Liestøl K (1987) Confidence intervals and confidence bands for the cumulative hazard rate function and their small-sample properties. Scand J Stat 14:221–233

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen P, Tsiatis AA (2001) Causal inference on the difference of the restricted mean lifetime between two groups. Biometrics 57:1030–1038

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng SC, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1997) Predicting survival probabilities with semiparametric transformation models. J Am Stat Assoc 92:227–235

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables (with Discussion). J R Stat Soc B 34:187–220

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dabrowska DM, Doksum KA, Song J (1989) Graphical comparison of cumulative hazards for two populations. Biometrika 76:763–773

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (2002) The statistical analysis of failure time data, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan E, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lin DY, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1993) Checking the Cox model with cumulative sums of martingale-based residuals. Biometrika 80:557–572

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lin DY, Fleming TR, Wei LJ (1994) Confidence bands for survival curves under the proportional hazards model. Biometrika 81:73–81

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, Rossouw JE, Assaf AR, Lasser NL, Trevisan M, Black HR, Heckbert SR, Detrano R, Strickland OL, Wong ND, Crouse JR, Stein E, Cushman M, for the Women’S Health Initiative Investigators, (2003) Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. New Eng J Med 349:523–534

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeague IW, Zhao Y (2002) Simultaneous confidence bands for ratios of survival functions via empirical likelihood. Stat Probab Lett 60:405–415

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nair VN (1984) Confidence bands for survival functions with censored data: a comparative study. Technometrics 26:265–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parzen MI, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1997) Simultaneous confidence intervals for the difference of two survival functions. Scand J Stat 24:309–314

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peng L, Huang Y (2007) Survival analysis with temporal covariate effects. Biometrika 94:719–733

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard D (1990) Empirical processes: theory and applications. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, CA

  • Prentice RL, Langer R, Stefanick ML, Howard BV, Pettinger M, Anderson G, Barad D, Curb JD, Kotchen J, Kuller L, Limacher M, Wactawski-Wende J, for the Women’S Health Initiative Investigators (2005) Combined postmenopausal hormone therapy and cardiovascular disease: toward resolving the discrepancy between observational studies and the women’s health initiative clinical trial. Am J Epidemiol 162:404–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Royston P, Parmar MK (2011) The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med 19:2409–2421

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubel DE, Wei G (2011) Double inverse-weighted estimation of cumulative treatment effects under nonproportional hazards and dependent censoring. Biometrics 67:29–38

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tian L, Zucker D, Wei LJ (2005) On the Cox model with time-varying regression coefficients. J Am Stat Assoc 100:172–183

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tong X, Zhu C, Sun J (2007) Semiparametric regression analysis of two-sample current status data, with applications to tumorigenicity experiments. Can J Stat 35:575–584

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the women’s health initiative randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 288:321–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang S, Prentice RL (2005) Semiparametric analysis of short-term and long-term hazard ratios with two-sample survival data. Biometrika 92:1–17

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yang S, Prentice RL (2011) Estimation of the 2-sample hazard ratio function using a semiparametric model. Biostatistics 12:354–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker DM (1998) Restricted mean life with covariates: modification and extension of a useful survival analysis method. J Am Stat Assoc 93:702–709

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the reviewers and the Guest Editor for helpful comments and suggestions, which led to an improved version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Song Yang.

Appendices

Appendix A : Consistency

Throughout the Appendices, we assume the following regularity conditions, which is a little weaker than the conditions used in Yang and Prentice (2005).

  • Condition 1. \(\lim \frac{n_1}{n}=\rho \in (0,1)\).

  • Condition 2. The survivor function \(G_i\) of \(C_i\) given \(Z_i\) is continuous and satisfies

    $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{n}\sum _{i\le n_1} G_i(t) \rightarrow \varGamma _1,\ \frac{1}{n}\sum _{i> n_1} G_i(t) \rightarrow \varGamma _2, \end{aligned}$$

    uniformly for \(t\le \tau \), for some \(\varGamma _1, \varGamma _2\), and \(\tau <\tau _0\) such that \(\varGamma _j(\tau )>0,\ j=1,2\).

  • Condition 3. The survivor functions \(S_C\) and \(S_T\) are absolutely continuous and \(S_C(\tau )>0\).

Under these conditions, the strong law of large numbers implies that (3) is satisfied.

For \(t\le \tau ,\) define

$$\begin{aligned} L(t)&= \varGamma _1 S_C+ \varGamma _2 S_T, \\ U_j(t;\mathbf{b})&= \int ^t_0\varGamma _1 dF_C+ \exp (-b_j) \int ^t_0\varGamma _2dF_T, \ j= 1,2, \\ \varLambda _j(t;\mathbf{b})&= \int ^t_0\frac{dU_j(s;\mathbf{b})}{L(s)},\ \ j= 1,2,\\ P(t;\mathbf{b})&= \exp \{-\varLambda _2(t;\mathbf{b})\}, \ R(t;\mathbf{b})=\frac{1}{P(t;\mathbf{b})}\int ^t_0P(s;\mathbf{b})d\varLambda _1(s;\mathbf{b}),\\ f_j^0(t;\mathbf{b})&= \frac{\exp (-b_j)R^{j-1}(t;\mathbf{b})}{\exp (-b_1)+ \exp (-b_2)R(t;\mathbf{b})},\ j=1,2, \\ m_j(\mathbf{b})&= \left\{ \int ^{\tau }_0f_j^0 \varGamma _2(t)dF_T(t) -\int ^{\tau }_0\frac{f_j^0\varGamma _2(t) S_T(t)dR(t;\mathbf{b})}{\exp (-b_1) +\exp (-b_2)R(t;\mathbf{b})}\right\} ,\ j=1,2, \end{aligned}$$

and \(m(\mathbf{b})=(m_1(\mathbf{b}),m_2(\mathbf{b}))^{\prime }\). We will also assume

  • Condition 4. The function \(m(\mathbf{b})\) is non-zero for \(b\in \mathcal {B}-\{\mathbf{\beta }\}\), where \(\mathcal {B}\) is a compact neighborhood of \(\mathbf{\beta }\).

Theorem 1

Suppose that Conditions \(1\sim 4\) hold. Then, (i) the zero \(\hat{\mathbf{\beta }}\) of \(Q(\mathbf{b})\) in \(\mathcal {B}\) is strongly consistent for \(\mathbf{\beta }\); (ii) \(\hat{\varPhi }(t)\) is strongly consistent for \(\varPhi (t)\), uniformly for \(t\in [0, \tau ]\), and \(\hat{\varPsi }(t)\) is strongly consistent for \(\varPsi (t)\), uniformly on \(t\in [0, \tau ]\); (iii) \(\hat{\varOmega }\) converges almost surely to a limiting matrix \(\varOmega ^*\).

Proof

Under Conditions \(1 \sim 3\), the limit of \(\sum ^n_{i=1}I(X_i\ge t)/n\) is bounded away from zero on \(t\in [0,\tau ]\). Thus, with probability 1,

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\sum ^n_{i=1}\delta _i e^{-b_jZ_i}I(X_i=t)}{\sum ^n_{i=1}\delta _i I(X_i\ge t)}\rightarrow 0,\ j=1,2, \end{aligned}$$
(14)

uniformly for \(t\in [0,\tau ]\) and \(b\in \mathcal {B}.\) From this, one also has, with probability 1,

$$\begin{aligned} | \Delta \hat{P}(t;\mathbf{b})|\rightarrow 0,\ | \Delta \hat{R}(t;\mathbf{b})|\rightarrow 0, \end{aligned}$$
(15)

uniformly for \(t\in [0,\tau ]\) and \(b\in \mathcal {B},\) where \(\Delta \) indicates the jump of the function in \(t\).

Define the martingale residuals

$$\begin{aligned} \hat{M}_{i}(t;\mathbf{b})=\delta _iI(X_i\le t)-\int ^t_0I(X_i\ge s) \frac{\hat{R}(ds;\mathbf{b})}{e^{-b_1Z_i}+e^{-b_2Z_i} \hat{R}(s;\mathbf{b}) }, \ 1\le i \le n. \end{aligned}$$

From (14), (15), and the fundamental theorem of calculus, it follows that, with probability 1,

$$\begin{aligned} Q(\mathbf{b})=\sum ^n_{i=1}\int ^{\tau }_0\{f_{i}(t;\mathbf{b})+o(1)\}\hat{M}_i(dt;\mathbf{b}), \end{aligned}$$
(16)

uniformly in \(t\le \tau , b\in \mathcal {B}\) and \(i\le n\), where \(f_i=(f_{1i},f_{2i})^T\), with

$$\begin{aligned} f_{1i}(t;\mathbf{b})=\frac{Z_ie^{-b_1Z_i}}{e^{-b_1Z_i}+ e^{-b_2Z_i}\hat{R}(t;\mathbf{b})},\ f_{2i}(t;\mathbf{b})=\frac{Z_ie^{-b_2Z_i}\hat{R}(t;\mathbf{b})}{e^{-b_1Z_i}+ e^{-b_2Z_i}\hat{R}(t;\mathbf{b})}. \end{aligned}$$

From the strong law of large numbers (Pollard 1990, p.41) and repeated use of Lemma A1 of Yang and Prentice (2005), one obtain, with probability 1,

$$\begin{aligned} \hat{P}(t;\mathbf{b})\rightarrow \hat{P}(t;\mathbf{b}),\ \hat{R}(t;\mathbf{b})\rightarrow R(t;\mathbf{b}),\ Q(\mathbf{b})/n \rightarrow m(\mathbf{b}), \end{aligned}$$
(17)

uniformly in \(t\le \tau \) and \(\mathbf{b}\in \mathcal {B}\). From these results and Condition 4, one obtains the strong consistency of \(\hat{\mathbf{\beta }}, \hat{\varPhi }(t)\) and \(\hat{\varPsi }(t)\), and almost sure convergence of \(\hat{\varOmega }\). \(\square \)

Appendix B: Weak convergence

For \(\ C(t),\ D(t),\ \mu _1(t), \mu _2(t), \nu _1(t),\ \nu _2(t)\), let \(C^*(t), \ D^*(t), \) etc. be their almost sure limit. In addition, let \(L_j\) be the almost sure limit of \(K_j/n,\ j=1, 2.\) For \(0\le s, t<\tau ,\) let

$$\begin{aligned}&\sigma _\varPhi (s,t)\nonumber \\&\quad = D^{*T}(s) \varOmega ^* \left( \int ^\tau _0 \frac{\mu _1^*\mu _1^{*T}}{1+R} L_1dR + \int ^\tau _0 \frac{\mu _2^*\mu _2^{*T}}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R}L_2dR\right) \varOmega ^{*T} D^*(t)\nonumber \\&\quad + C^*(s)C^*(t) \left( \int ^s_0 \frac{\nu _1^{*2}}{1+R} L_1dR + \int ^s_0 \frac{\nu _2^{*2}}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R}L_2dR\right)\nonumber \\&\quad + C^*(t) D^{*T}(s)\varOmega ^* \left( \int ^t_0 \frac{\mu _1^*\nu _1^*}{1+R} L_1dR + \int ^t_0 \frac{\mu _2^*\nu _2^*}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R}L_2dR\right)\nonumber \\&\quad +C^*(s) D^{*T}(t) \varOmega ^* \left( \int ^s_0 \frac{\mu _1^*\nu _1^*}{1+R} L_1dR + \int ^s_0 \frac{\mu _2^*\nu _2^*}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R}L_2dR\right), \end{aligned}$$
(18)

and

$$\begin{aligned}&\sigma _\varPsi (s,t)\nonumber \\&\quad = \int _0^sD^{*T}(x)dx \varOmega ^* \left( \int ^\tau _0 \frac{\mu _1^*(w)\mu _1^{*T}(w)}{1+R(w)}L_1(w)dR (w)\right. \nonumber \\&\quad \left.+ \int ^\tau _0 \frac{\mu _2^*(w)\mu _2^{*T}(w)}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R(w)}L_2(w)dR(w)\right) \varOmega ^{*T} \int _0^tD^{*T}(x)dx \nonumber \\&\quad + \int ^s_0 \frac{\nu _1^{*2}(w)}{1+R(w)} \left(\int _w^sC^*(x)dx\right)^2L_1(w)dR(w) \nonumber \\&\quad + \int ^s_0 \frac{\nu _2^{*2}(w)}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R(w)} \left(\int _w^sC^*(x)dx\right)^2L_2(w)dR(w)\nonumber \\&\quad +\int _0^sD^{*T}(x)dx\varOmega ^* \int ^t_0 \frac{\mu _1^*(w)\nu _1^*(w)}{1+R(w)}\left(\int _w^tC^*(x)dx\right)L_1(w)dR(w) \nonumber \\&\quad + \int _0^sD^{*T}(x)dx\varOmega ^* \int ^t_0 \frac{\mu _2^*(w)\nu _2^*(w)}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R(w)}\left(\int _w^tC^*(x)dx\right)L_2dR(w) \nonumber \\&\quad +\int _0^tD^{*T}(x)dx\varOmega ^* \int ^s_0 \frac{\mu _1^*(w)\nu _1^*(w)}{1+R(w)}\left(\int _w^sC^*(x)dx\right)L_1(w)dR(w) \nonumber \\&\quad + \int _0^tD^{*T}(x)dx\varOmega ^* \int ^s_0 \frac{\mu _2^*(w)\nu _2^*(w)}{e^{-\beta _1}+e^{-\beta _2}R(w)}\left(\int _w^sC^*(x)dx\right)L_2(w)dR(w). \end{aligned}$$
(19)

Theorem 2

Suppose that Conditions \(1\sim 4\) hold and that the matrix \(\varOmega ^*\) is non-singular. Then, (i) \(U_n\) is asymptotically equivalent to the process \(\tilde{U_n}\) in (8) which converges weakly to a zero-mean Gaussian process \(U^*\) on \([0,\tau ]\), with covariance function \(\sigma _\varPhi (s,t)\) in (18). In addition, \(\hat{U}_n(s)\) given the data converges weakly to the same limiting process \(U^*\). (ii) \(V_n(t)\) is asymptotically equivalent to the process \(\tilde{V}_n\) in (10) which converges weakly to the zero-mean Gaussian process \(\int _0^tU^*(s)ds\) on \(t\in [0, \tau ],\) with covariance function \(\sigma _\varPsi (s,t)\) in (19). The process \(\int _0^t\hat{V}_n(s)ds\) given the data also converges weakly to the same limiting process \(\int _0^tU^*(s)ds\).

Proof

(i) As in the proof for Theorem A2 (ii) in Yang and Prentice (2005), from the strong embedding theorem and (16), \(Q(\mathbf{\beta })/\sqrt{n}\) can be shown to be asymptotically normal. Now Taylor series expansion of \(Q(\mathbf{b})\) around \(\mathbf{\beta }\) and the non-singularity of \(\varOmega ^*\) imply that \(\sqrt{n}(\hat{\mathbf{\beta }}-\mathbf{\beta })\) is asymptotically normal. From the \(\sqrt{n}\)-boundedness of \(\hat{\mathbf{\beta }}\),

$$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{n}( \hat{R}(t;\hat{\mathbf{\beta }}) -\hat{R}(t;\mathbf{\beta }) )&= \frac{\partial R(t;\beta )}{\partial \beta } \sqrt{n} (\hat{\mathbf{\beta }}-\mathbf{\beta })+o_p(1), \end{aligned}$$

uniformly in \(t\le \tau .\) These results, some algebra and Taylor series expansion together show that \(U_n\) is asymptotically equivalent to \(\tilde{U}_n\). Similarly to the proof of the asymptotic normality of \(Q(\mathbf{\beta })/\sqrt{n}\), one can show that \(\tilde{U}_n\) converges weakly to a zero-mean Gaussian process. Denote the limiting process by \(U^*\). From the martingale integral representation of \(\tilde{U}_n\), it follows that the covariation process of \(U^*\) is given by \(\sigma (s,t)\) in (18), which can be consistently estimated by \(\hat{\sigma }(s,t)\) in (8). By checking the tightness condition and the convergence of the finite-dimensional distributions, it can be shown that \(\hat{U}_n(s)\) given the data also converges weakly to \(U^*\). \(\square \)

(ii) From the results in (i), the assertions on \(V_n\) and \(\tilde{V}_n\) follow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, S. Semiparametric inference on the absolute risk reduction and the restricted mean survival difference. Lifetime Data Anal 19, 219–241 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-013-9243-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-013-9243-y

Keywords

Navigation