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.
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
Chen P, Tsiatis AA (2001) Causal inference on the difference of the restricted mean lifetime between two groups. Biometrics 57:1030–1038
Cheng SC, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1997) Predicting survival probabilities with semiparametric transformation models. J Am Stat Assoc 92:227–235
Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables (with Discussion). J R Stat Soc B 34:187–220
Dabrowska DM, Doksum KA, Song J (1989) Graphical comparison of cumulative hazards for two populations. Biometrika 76:763–773
Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (2002) The statistical analysis of failure time data, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Kaplan E, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481
Lin DY, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1993) Checking the Cox model with cumulative sums of martingale-based residuals. Biometrika 80:557–572
Lin DY, Fleming TR, Wei LJ (1994) Confidence bands for survival curves under the proportional hazards model. Biometrika 81:73–81
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
McKeague IW, Zhao Y (2002) Simultaneous confidence bands for ratios of survival functions via empirical likelihood. Stat Probab Lett 60:405–415
Nair VN (1984) Confidence bands for survival functions with censored data: a comparative study. Technometrics 26:265–275
Parzen MI, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1997) Simultaneous confidence intervals for the difference of two survival functions. Scand J Stat 24:309–314
Peng L, Huang Y (2007) Survival analysis with temporal covariate effects. Biometrika 94:719–733
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
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
Schaubel DE, Wei G (2011) Double inverse-weighted estimation of cumulative treatment effects under nonproportional hazards and dependent censoring. Biometrics 67:29–38
Tian L, Zucker D, Wei LJ (2005) On the Cox model with time-varying regression coefficients. J Am Stat Assoc 100:172–183
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
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
Yang S, Prentice RL (2005) Semiparametric analysis of short-term and long-term hazard ratios with two-sample survival data. Biometrika 92:1–17
Yang S, Prentice RL (2011) Estimation of the 2-sample hazard ratio function using a semiparametric model. Biostatistics 12:354–368
Zucker DM (1998) Restricted mean life with covariates: modification and extension of a useful survival analysis method. J Am Stat Assoc 93:702–709
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
Corresponding author
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
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,
uniformly for \(t\in [0,\tau ]\) and \(b\in \mathcal {B}.\) From this, one also has, with probability 1,
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
From (14), (15), and the fundamental theorem of calculus, it follows that, with probability 1,
uniformly in \(t\le \tau , b\in \mathcal {B}\) and \(i\le n\), where \(f_i=(f_{1i},f_{2i})^T\), with
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,
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
and
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 \(\hat{\mathbf{\beta }}\),
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
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-013-9243-y