Lifetime Data Analysis

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 407–424 | Cite as

Group and within-group variable selection for competing risks data

  • Kwang Woo Ahn
  • Anjishnu Banerjee
  • Natasha Sahr
  • Soyoung Kim


Variable selection in the presence of grouped variables is troublesome for competing risks data: while some recent methods deal with group selection only, simultaneous selection of both groups and within-group variables remains largely unexplored. In this context, we propose an adaptive group bridge method, enabling simultaneous selection both within and between groups, for competing risks data. The adaptive group bridge is applicable to independent and clustered data. It also allows the number of variables to diverge as the sample size increases. We show that our new method possesses excellent asymptotic properties, including variable selection consistency at group and within-group levels. We also show superior performance in simulated and real data sets over several competing approaches, including group bridge, adaptive group lasso, and AIC / BIC-based methods.


Adaptive penalty Clustered data Competing risks data Group bridge 



The US National Cancer Institute (U24CA076518) partially supported this work. The authors would like to thank the Associate Editor and two reviewers for their helpful comments that significantly improved the paper.

Supplementary material

10985_2017_9400_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (59 kb)
Supplementary Materials The proofs of Theorem 2 and Corollary 1 and a list of variables for the bone marrow transplant data are available online. (PDF 60KB).


  1. Cai J, Fan J, Li R, Zhou H (2005) Variable selection for multivariate failure time data. Biometrika 92:303–316MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Commenges D, Andersen PK (1995) Score test of homogeneity for survival data. Lifetime Data Anal 1:145–156MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Fan J, Li R (2002) Variable selection for Cox’s proportional hazards model and frailty properties. J Am Stat Assoc 30:74–99zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Fine JP, Gray RJ (1999) A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94:496–509MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Fu Z (2015) crrp: Penalized variable selection in competing risks regression., r package version 1.0
  6. Fu Z, Parikh CR, Zhou B (2016a) Penalized variable selection in competing risks regression. Lifetime Data Anal. doi: 10.1007/s10985-016-9362-3
  7. Fu Z, Ma S, Lin H, Parikh CR, Zhou B (2016b) Penalized variable selection for multi-center competing risks data. Stat Biosci. doi: 10.1007/s12561-016-9181-9
  8. Gray RJ (1988) A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat 16:1141–1154MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Ha ID, Lee M, Oh S, Jeong JH, Sylvester R, Lee Y (2014) Variable selection in subdistribution hazard frailty models with competing risks data. Stat Med 33:4590–604MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang J, Ma S, Xie H, Zhang CH (2009) A group bridge approach for variable selection. Biometrika 96:339–355MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang J, Li L, Liu Y, Zhao X (2014) Group selection in the Cox model with a diverging number of covariates. Stat Sin 24:1787–1810MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim HT, Zhang MJ, Woolfrey AE, Martin AS, Chen J, Saber W, Perales MA, Armand P, Eapen M (2016) Donor and recipient sex in allogeneic stem cell transplantation: what really matters. Haematologica 101:1260–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kroger N, Solano C, Wolschke C et al (2016) Antilymphocyte globulin for prevention of chronic graft-versus-host disease. New Engl J Med 374:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuk D, Varadhan R (2013) Model selection in competing risks regression. Stat Med 32:3077–3088MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Logan B, Zhang MJ, Klein JP (2011) Marginal models for clustered time to event data with competing risks using pseudovalues. Biometrics 67:1–7MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AV, Flournoy N, Farewell VT, Breslow NE (1978) The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34:541–554CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Rubio MT, Labopin M, Blaise D et al (2015) The impact of graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis in reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant in acute myeloid leukemia: a study from the acute leukemia working party of the European group for blood and marrow transplantation. Haematologica 100:683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seetharaman I (2013) Consistent bi-level variable selection via composite group bridge penalized regression. Master’s thesis, Kansas State University, KS, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaw PJ, Kan F, Ahn KW, Spellman SR, Aljurf M, Ayas M et al (2010) Outcomes of pediatric bone marrow transplantation for leukemia and myelodysplasia using matched sibling, mismatched related, or matched unrelated donors. Blood 116:4007–4015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Varadhan R, Kuk D (2015) crrstep: Stepwise covariate selection for the Fine and Gray competing risks regression model., r package version 2015-2.1
  21. Wang HJ, Zhou J, Li Y (2013) Variable selection for censored quantile regression. Stat Sin 23:145–167zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Wu TT, Wang S (2013) Doubly regularized Cox regression for high-dimensional survival data with group structures. Stat Interface 6:175–186MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Yuan M, Lin Y (2006) Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables. J R Stat Soc Ser B 68:49–67MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhou B, Fine J, Latouche A, Labopin M (2012) Competing risks regression for clustered data. Biostatistics 13:371–383CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Zou H (2006) The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. J Am Stat Assoc 101:1418–1429MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiostatisticsMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations