Survival Analysis in the Regulatory Setting

  • Susan S. Ellenberg
  • Jay P. Siegel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Statistics book series (LNS, volume 123)


The powerful methods for analyzing survival data (particularly censored survival data) that were introduced in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s represented major advances in the statistical assessment of such data. It is important to recognize, however, that these may not always be most appropriate to address the fundamental study question in any situation in which time-to-event techniques could be applied. In this paper, several such situations are considered, and the particular implications for regulatory decision-making are discussed.


Composite Endpoint Rejection Episode Proportional Hazard Assumption Regulatory Setting Sepsis Syndrome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abraham, E., Wunderink, R., Silverman, H., et al. (1995). Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody to human tumor necrosis factor and in patients with sepsis syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 934–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. K., Borgan, O., Gill, R. D., and Keiding, N. (1993). Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bone, R. C., Fisher, C. J. Jr., Clemmer, T. P., et al. (1989). Sepsis syndrome: a valid clinical entity. Critical Care Medicine, 17, 389–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Centers for Disease Control. (1992). 1993 Revised classification system for HIV infection and expanded surveillance case definition for AIDS among adolescents and adults. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 41, 1–35.Google Scholar
  5. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, C. J. Jr., Dhainaut J. F. A., Opal, S. M., et al. (1994). Recombinant human interleukin 1 receptor antagonist in the treatment of patients with sepsis syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271, 1836–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleming, T. R. and Harrington D. P. (1991). Counting Processes and Survival Analysis. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenman, R. L., Schein, R. M. H., Martin, M. A., et al. (1991). A controlled clinical trial of E5 murine monoclonal IgM antibody to endotoxin in the treatment of gram-negative sepsis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 1097–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes, M. D. (1997). Power considerations for clinical trials using multivariate time-to-event data. Statistics in Medicine, in press.Google Scholar
  11. Knaus, W. A., Harrell, F. E., Fisher, C. J. Jr., et al. (1993). The clinical evaluation of new drugs for sepsis: a prospective study design based on survival analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 35, 861–867.Google Scholar
  12. Legier, J. M., Lefkopoulou, M., Ryan, L. M. (1995). Efficiency and power of tests for multiple binary outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mantel, N. (1966). Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemotherapy Reports, 50, 163–170.Google Scholar
  14. Neaton, J. D., Wentworth, D. H., Rhame, F., et al. (1994). Methods for studying interventions: considerations in choice of a clinical endpoint for AIDS clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 13, 2107–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Brien, P. C. (1984). Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics, 40, 1079–1087.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parrillo SE, Parker MM, Natanson C., et al. (1990). Septic shock in humans. Annals of Internal Medicine, 113, 227–242.Google Scholar
  17. Prentice R.L., Williams B.J. and Peterson A.V. (1981). On the regression analysis of multivariate failure time data. Biometrika, 68, 373–379.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rubenstein, L. V., Gail, M. H., and Santner, T. J. (1981). Planning the duration of a comparative clinical trial with loss to follow-up and a period of continued observation. Journal of Chronic Disease, 34, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siegel, J. P. (1997). Discussion of the paper by L. J. Wei and D. V. Glidden on “An overview of statistical methods for multiple failure time data in clinical trials”. Statistics in Medicine, in press.Google Scholar
  20. Tang, D. L, Geller, N. L., and Pocock, S. J. (1993). On the design and analysis of randomized clinical trials with multiple endpoints. Biometrics, 49, 23–30.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Therneau, T. M. (1997). Extending the Cox model. In Proceedings of the First Seattle Symposium in Bio statistics: Survival Analysis, Eds. D. Y. Lin and T. R. Fleming, pp. xxx–xxx. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Wei, L. J., Lin, D. Y., and Weissfeld, L. (1989). Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 1065–1073.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ziegler, E. J., Fisher, C. J. Jr., Sprung, C. L., et al. (1991). Treatment of gram-negative bacteremia and septic shock with HA-1A human monoclonal antibody against endotoxin. New England Journal of Medicine, 324, 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan S. Ellenberg
  • Jay P. Siegel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations