Lifetime Data Analysis

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 310–327 | Cite as

Evaluation of the treatment time-lag effect for survival data



Medical treatments often take a period of time to reveal their impact on subjects, which is the so-called time-lag effect in the literature. In the survival data analysis literature, most existing methods compare two treatments in the entire study period. In cases when there is a substantial time-lag effect, these methods would not be effective in detecting the difference between the two treatments, because the similarity between the treatments during the time-lag period would diminish their effectiveness. In this paper, we develop a novel modeling approach for estimating the time-lag period and for comparing the two treatments properly after the time-lag effect is accommodated. Theoretical arguments and numerical examples show that it is effective in practice.


Cox proportional hazards model Crossing hazard rates Lag effect Survival analysis Treatment comparison 



The authors thank the editor and two referees for their valuable comments which greatly improved the quality of this paper.

Supplementary material

10985_2017_9390_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (188 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 187 KB)


  1. Andersen PK, Gill RD (1982) Cox’s regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat 10:1100–1120MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain L, Englehardt M (1991) Statistical analysis of reliability and life-testing models: theory and methods, vol 115. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen Z, Huang H, Qiu P (2016) Comparison of multiple hazard rate functions. Biometrics 72:39–45MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng MY, Qiu P, Tan X, Tu D (2009) Confidence intervals for the first crossing point of two hazard functions. Lifetime Data Anal 15(4):441–454MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol) 34(2):187–220MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinse GE, Piegorsch WW, Boos DD (1993) Confidence statements about the time range over which survival curves differ. Appl Stat 42:21–30CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleming TR, Harrington DP (1991) Counting processes and survival analysis. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein J, Moeschberger M (2005) Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Lin X, Wang H (2004) A new testing approach for comparing the overall homogeneity of survival curves. Biom J 46(5):489–496MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu K, Qiu P, Sheng J (2007) Comparing two crossing hazard rates by cox proportional hazards modelling. Stat Med 26(2):375–391MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mantel N, Bohidar NR, Ciminera JL (1977) Mantel-Haenszel analyses of litter-matched time-to-response data, with modifications for recovery of interlitter information. Cancer Res 37(11):3863–3868Google Scholar
  12. O’Quigley J (1994) On a two-sided test for crossing hazards. Stat 43:563–569Google Scholar
  13. Park K, Qiu P (2014) Model selection and diagnostics for joint modeling of survival and longitudinal data with crossing hazard rate functions. Stat Med 33:4532–4546MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Qiu P, Sheng J (2008) A two-stage procedure for comparing hazard rate functions. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 70(1):191–208MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM (2000) Modeling survival data: extending the cox model. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Zucker DM, Lakatos E (1990) Weighted log rank type statistics for comparing survival curves when there is a time lag in the effectiveness of treatment. Biometrika 77(4):853–864MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations