Share This Article:

A Measure for Assessing Functions of Time-Varying Effects in Survival Analysis

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:4140KB) PP. 977-998
DOI: 10.4236/ojs.2014.411092    2,845 Downloads   3,480 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

A standard approach for analyses of survival data is the Cox proportional hazards model. It assumes that covariate effects are constant over time, i.e. that the hazards are proportional. With longer follow-up times, though, the effect of a variable often gets weaker and the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is violated. In the last years, several approaches have been proposed to detect and model such time-varying effects. However, comparison and evaluation of the various approaches is difficult. A suitable measure is needed that quantifies the difference between time-varying effects and enables judgement about which method is best, i.e. which estimate is closest to the true effect. In this paper we adapt a measure proposed for the area between smoothed curves of exposure to time-varying effects. This measure is based on the weighted area between curves of time-varying effects relative to the area under a reference function that represents the true effect. We introduce several weighting schemes and demonstrate the application and performance of this new measure in a real-life data set and a simulation study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Buchholz, A. , Sauerbrei, W. and Royston, P. (2014) A Measure for Assessing Functions of Time-Varying Effects in Survival Analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 977-998. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.411092.

References

[1] Cox, D.R. (1972) Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Methodological, 34, 187-220.
[2] Schoenfeld, D. (1982) Partial Residuals for the Proportional Hazards Regression Model. Biometrika, 69, 239-241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/69.1.239
[3] Kneib, T. and Fahrmeir, L. (2007) A Mixed Model Approach for Geoadditive Hazard Regression. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 34, 207-228.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9469.2006.00524.x
[4] Perperoglou, A., le Cessie, S. and van Houwelingen, H.C. (2006) Reduced-Rank Hazard Regression for Modelling Non-Proportional Hazards. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 2831-2845.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.2360
[5] Scheike, T.H. and Martinussen, T. (2004) On Estimation and Tests of Time-Varying Effects in the Proportional Hazards Model. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 31, 51-62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9469.2004.00372.x
[6] Berger, U., Sch?fer, J. and Ulm, K. (2003) Dynamic Cox Modelling Based on Fractional Polynomials: Time-Variations in Gastric Cancer Prognosis. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1163-1180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1411
[7] Sauerbrei, W., Royston, P. and Look, M. (2007) A New Proposal for Multivariable Modelling of Time-Varying Effects in Survival Data Based on Fractional Polynomial Time-Transformation. Biometrical Journal, 49, 453-473.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200610328
[8] Grambsch, P.M. and Therneau, T.M. (1994) Proportional Hazards Tests and Diagnostics Based on Weighted Residuals Biometrika, 81, 515-526.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/81.3.515
[9] Sauerbrei, W., Royston, P. and Binder, H. (2007) Selection of Important Variables and Determination of Functional Form for Continuous Predictors in Multivariable Model Building. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 5512-5528.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.3148
[10] Govindarajulu, U.S., Spiegelman, D., Thurston, S.W., Ganguli, B. and Eisen, E.A. (2007) Comparing Smoothing Techniques in Cox Models for Exposure-Response Relationships. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 3735-3752.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.2848
[11] Royston, P. and Altman, D.G. (1994) Regression Using Fractional Polynomials of Continuous Covariates: Parsimonious Parametric Modelling. Applied Statistics, 43, 429-453.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2986270
[12] Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. (1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9
[13] Buchholz, A. and Sauerbrei, W. (2011) Comparison of Procedures to Assess Non-Linear and Time-Varying Effects in Multivariable Models for Survival Data. Biometrical Journal, 53, 308-331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201000159
[14] Altman, D.G., Lausen, B., Sauerbrei, W. and Schumacher, M. (1994) Danger of Using “Optimal” Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic Factors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86, 829-835.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/86.11.829
[15] Foekens, J.A., Peters, H.A., Look, M.P., Portengen, H., Schmitt, M., Kramer, M.D., Brünner, N., J?nicke, F., Meijer-van Gelder, M.E., Henzen-Logmans, S.C., van Putten, W.L.J. and Klijn, J.G.M. (2000) The Urokinase System of Plasminogen Activation and Prognosis in 2780 Breast Cancer Patients. Cancer Research, 60, 636-643.
[16] Buchholz, A. (2010) Assessment of Time-Varying Long-Term Effects of Therapies and Prognostic Factors. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universit?t Dortmund, Dortmund.
http://hdl.handle.net/2003/27342
[17] Winnett, A. and Sasieni, P. (2001) Miscellanea. A Note on Scaled Schoenfeld Residuals for the Proportional Hazards Model. Biometrika, 88, 565-571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/88.2.565
[18] Royston, P. and Sauerbrei, W. (2007) Improving the Robustness of Fractional Polynomial Models by Preliminary Covariate Transformation: A Pragmatic Approach. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51, 4240-4253.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.05.006
[19] Binder, H., Sauerbrei, W. and Royston, P. (2011) Multivariable Model-Building with Continuous Covariates: 1. Performance Measures and Simulation Design. Technical Report 105, University of Freiburg, Freiburg.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.