Advertisement

Survival Analysis

  • Benjamin Haaland
  • Mina Georgieva
Chapter

Abstract

Many oncology studies have time-to-event endpoints of interest, such as overall or progression-free survival. Frequently, time-to-event endpoints are subject to censoring, where an event time is only known to have occurred in a particular interval, mostly commonly right-censoring occurs, where it is only known that the event has not occurred up to some particular time”. In general, specialized techniques are required for the appropriate estimation and comparison of quantities related to time-to-event data, such as force of mortality, median time-to-event, or long-term survival probability.

This chapter provides an introduction to several of the most common problems related to the analysis of time-to-event data, and outlines a few typical approaches to handling these problems, as well as related analytic techniques. Topics discussed include time-to-event data and right-censoring, estimation of the survival function and related quantities, the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards modeling, and power and sample size when the hazard ratio is the metric of comparison. An example “toy” randomized controlled trial example is used throughout the chapter to illustrate the techniques, as well as the interpretation of results and the output of statistical software.

Keywords

Log-rank test Cox proportional hazards Kaplan-Meier Right-censored data Survival analysis Time-to-event data 

References

  1. 1.
    Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Survival analysis: a self-learning text. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Core Team; 2014. http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore D. Applied survival analysis using R. New York: Springer; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Cutsem E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1408–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53(282):457–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenwood M Jr. The natural duration of cancer. Reports of Public Health and Related Subjects. London: HMSO; 1926. p. 33.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Efron B. The efficiency of Cox’s likelihood function for censored data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1977;72(359):557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorge N, Stephen JW. Numerical optimization. New York: Springer; 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Box GEP. Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. Robustness Stat. 1979;1:201–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Regression modeling of time to event data, Applied survival analysis. New York: Wiley; 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 1974;19(6):716–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwarz GE. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978;6(2):461–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoenfeld DA. Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics. 1983;39:499–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amorim LDAF, Cai J. Modelling recurrent events: a tutorial for analysis in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(1):324–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med. 2007;26(11):2389–430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindsey JC, Ryan LM. Methods for interval-censored data. Stat Med. 1998;17(2):219–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sterne JAC, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van der Laan MJ, Robins JM. Unified methods for censored longitudinal data and causality. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin DY, Wei L-J. The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;84(408):1074–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations