Computationally efficient inference for center effects based on restricted mean survival time.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wang X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6800807 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Computationally efficient inference for center effects based on restricted mean survival time.
Wang Xin X Zhong Yingchao Y Mukhopadhyay Purna P Schaubel Douglas E DE
Statistics in medicine 20190909 26
Restricted mean survival time (RMST) has gained increased attention in biostatistical and clinical studies. Directly modeling RMST (as opposed to modeling then transforming the hazard function) is appealing computationally and in terms of interpreting covariate effects. We propose computationally convenient methods for evaluating center effects based on RMST. A multiplicative model for the RMST is assumed. Estimation proceeds through an algorithm analogous to stratification, which permits the ev ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:For a study with an event time as the endpoint, its survival function contains all the information regarding the temporal, stochastic profile of this outcome variable. The survival probability at a specific time point, say t, however, does not transparently capture the temporal profile of this endpoint up to t. An alternative is to use the restricted mean survival time (RMST) at time t to summarize the profile. The RMST is the mean survival time of all subjects in the study population followed up to t, and is simply the area under the survival curve up to t. The advantages of using such a quantification over the survival rate have been discussed in the setting of a fixed-time analysis. In this article, we generalize this approach by considering a curve based on the RMST over time as an alternative summary to the survival function. Inference, for instance, based on simultaneous confidence bands for a single RMST curve and also the difference between two RMST curves are proposed. The latter is informative for evaluating two groups under an equivalence or noninferiority setting, and quantifies the difference of two groups in a time scale. The proposal is illustrated with the data from two clinical trials, one from oncology and the other from cardiology.
| S-EPMC5114026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In clinical or epidemiological follow-up studies, methods based on time scale indicators such as the restricted mean survival time (RMST) have been developed to some extent. Compared with traditional hazard rate indicator system methods, the RMST is easier to interpret and does not require the proportional hazard assumption. To date, regression models based on the RMST are indirect or direct models of the RMST and baseline covariates. However, time-dependent covariates are becoming increasingly common in follow-up studies. Based on the inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) method, we developed a regression model of the RMST and time-dependent covariates. Through Monte Carlo simulation, we verified the estimation performance of the regression parameters of the proposed model. Compared with the time-dependent Cox model and the fixed (baseline) covariate RMST model, the time-dependent RMST model has a better prediction ability. Finally, an example of heart transplantation was used to verify the above conclusions.
| S-EPMC9545070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Restricted mean survival time (RMST) is often of great clinical interest in practice. Several existing methods involve explicitly projecting out patient-specific survival curves using parameters estimated through Cox regression. However, it would often be preferable to directly model the restricted mean for convenience and to yield more directly interpretable covariate effects. We propose generalized estimating equation methods to model RMST as a function of baseline covariates. The proposed methods avoid potentially problematic distributional assumptions pertaining to restricted survival time. Unlike existing methods, we allow censoring to depend on both baseline and time-dependent factors. Large sample properties of the proposed estimators are derived and simulation studies are conducted to assess their finite sample performance. We apply the proposed methods to model RMST in the absence of liver transplantation among end-stage liver disease patients. This analysis requires accommodation for dependent censoring since pre-transplant mortality is dependently censored by the receipt of a liver transplant.
| S-EPMC5565738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In clinical studies with time-to-event outcomes, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) has attracted substantial attention as a summary measurement for its straightforward clinical interpretation. When the data are subject to length-biased sampling, which is frequently encountered in observational cohort studies, existing methods to estimate the RMST are not applicable. In this article, we consider nonparametric and semiparametric regression methods to estimate the RMST under the setting of length-biased sampling. To assess the covariate effects on the RMST, a semiparametric regression model that directly relates the covariates and the RMST is assumed. Based on the model, we develop unbiased estimating equations to obtain consistent estimators of covariate effects by properly adjusting for informative censoring and length bias. Stochastic process theories are used to establish the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimators. We investigate the finite sample performance through simulations and illustrate the methods by analyzing a prevalent cohort study of dementia in Canada.
| S-EPMC5843504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Estimation and prediction of heterogeneous restricted mean survival time (hRMST) is of great clinical importance, which can provide an easily interpretable and clinically meaningful summary of the survival function in the presence of censoring and individual covariates. The existing methods for the modeling of hRMST rely on proportional hazards or other parametric assumptions on the survival distribution. In this paper, we propose a random forest based estimation of hRMST for right-censored survival data with covariates and prove a central limit theorem for the resulting estimator. In addition, we present a computationally efficient construction for the confidence interval of hRMST. Our simulations show that the resulting confidence intervals have the correct coverage probability of the hRMST, and the random forest based estimate of hRMST has smaller prediction errors than the parametric models when the models are mis-specified. We apply the method to the ovarian cancer data set from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project to predict hRMST and show an improved prediction performance over the existing methods. A software implementation, srf using R and C++, is available at https://github.com/lmy1019/SRF.
| S-EPMC7873855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The difference in restricted mean survival times between two groups is a clinically relevant summary measure. With observational data, there may be imbalances in confounding variables between the two groups. One approach to account for such imbalances is estimating a covariate-adjusted restricted mean difference by modeling the covariate-adjusted survival distribution and then marginalizing over the covariate distribution. Because the estimator for the restricted mean difference is defined by the estimator for the covariate-adjusted survival distribution, it is natural to expect that a better estimator of the covariate-adjusted survival distribution is associated with a better estimator of the restricted mean difference. We therefore propose estimating restricted mean differences with stacked survival models. Stacked survival models estimate a weighted average of several survival models by minimizing predicted error. By including a range of parametric, semi-parametric, and non-parametric models, stacked survival models can robustly estimate a covariate-adjusted survival distribution and, therefore, the restricted mean treatment effect in a wide range of scenarios. We demonstrate through a simulation study that better performance of the covariate-adjusted survival distribution often leads to better mean squared error of the restricted mean difference although there are notable exceptions. In addition, we demonstrate that the proposed estimator can perform nearly as well as Cox regression when the proportional hazards assumption is satisfied and significantly better when proportional hazards is violated. Finally, the proposed estimator is illustrated with data from the United Network for Organ Sharing to evaluate post-lung transplant survival between large-volume and small-volume centers. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
| S-EPMC4938776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRestricted mean survival time methods compare the areas under the Kaplan-Meier curves up to a time τ for the control and experimental treatments. Extraordinary claims have been made about the benefits (in terms of dramatically smaller required sample sizes) when using restricted mean survival time methods as compared to proportional hazards methods for analyzing noninferiority trials, even when the true survival distributions satisfy proportional hazardss.MethodsThrough some limited simulations and asymptotic power calculations, the authors compare the operating characteristics of restricted mean survival time and proportional hazards methods for analyzing both noninferiority and superiority trials under proportional hazardss to understand what relative power benefits there are when using restricted mean survival time methods for noninferiority testing.ResultsIn the setting of low-event rates, very large targeted noninferiority margins, and limited follow-up past τ, restricted mean survival time methods have more power than proportional hazards methods. For superiority testing, proportional hazards methods have more power. This is not a small-sample phenomenon but requires a low-event rate and a large noninferiority margin.ConclusionAlthough there are special settings where restricted mean survival time methods have a power advantage over proportional hazards methods for testing noninferiority, the larger issue in these settings is defining appropriate noninferiority margins. We find the restricted mean survival time methods lacking in these regards.
| S-EPMC8329935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesRestricted mean survival time (RMST) summarizes treatment effect in terms of a gain or loss in the event-free days. It remains uncertain whether communicating treatment benefit and harm using RMST-based summary is more effective than conventional summary based on absolute and relative risk reduction. We compared the effect of RMST-based approach and conventional approach on decisional conflict using an example of intensive versus standard blood pressure-lowering strategies.DesignOn-line survey.SettingA convenience sample of patients in the United States.ParticipantsTwo hundred adults aged 65 and older with hypertension requiring anti-hypertensive treatment (response rate 85.5%).InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to either RMST-based summary or conventional summary about the benefit and harm of blood pressure-lowering strategies.MeasurementsDecisional Conflict Scale (DCS), ranging from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict), and preference for intensive blood pressure-lowering strategy.ResultsParticipants assigned to RMST-based approach (n = 100) and conventional approach (n = 100) had similar age (mean [standard deviation, SD]: 72.3 [5.6] vs 72.8 [5.5] years) and proportions of female (50 [50.0%] vs 61 [61.0%]) and white race (92 [92.0%] vs 92 [92.0%]). The mean (SD) DCS score was 25.2 (15.0) for RMST-based approach and 25.6 (14.1) for conventional approach (p = 0.84). The number (%) of participants who preferred intensive strategy was 10 (10.0%) for RMST-based approach and 14 (14.0%) for conventional approach (p = 0.52). The results were consistent in subgroups defined by age, sex, education level, cardiovascular disease status, and predicted mortality risk categories.ConclusionIn a sample of relatively healthy older adults with hypertension, RMST-based approach was as effective as conventional approach on decisional conflict about choosing a blood pressure-lowering strategy. This study provides proof-of-concept evidence that RMST-based approach can be used in conjunction with absolute and relative risk reduction for communicating treatment benefit and harm in a decision aid.
| S-EPMC8373742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare restricted mean survival time- (RMST-) based methods with traditional survival methods when multiple covariates are of interest.Methods4405 osteosarcomas were captured from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Database. RMST-based methods included group comparison using Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, pseudovalue (PV) regression, and inverse probability of censoring probability (IPCW) regressions with group-specific and individual weights. Log-rank test, Wilcoxon test, Cox regression, and its extension with time-dependent variables were selected as traditional methods. Proportional hazard (PH) assumption and homogeneity of censoring mechanism assumption were assessed. We estimated hazard ratio (HR) and difference in RMST and explored their relationships.ResultsWhen covariate violated PH assumption, time-varying HR was inconvenient to report as a single value but PH assumption-free RMST allowed to report a single value of difference in RMST. In univariable analyses, using the difference in RMST calculated by KM method as reference, PV regressions (slope = 1.02 and R 2 = 0.98) and IPCW regressions with group-specific weights (slope = 0.98 and R 2 = 0.99) gave more consistent estimation than IPCW with individual weights (slope = 0.31 and R 2 = 0.06), moreover, PV regressions presented more robust statistical power than IPCW regressions with group-specific weights. In multivariable analyses, IPCW regression with group-specific weights was limited when multiple covariates violated homogeneity of censoring mechanism assumption. For covariates met PH assumption, well-fitted logarithmic relationships between HR and difference in RMST estimated by PV regression were observed in both univariable and multivariable analyses (R 2 = 0.97 and R 2 = 0.94, respectively), which supported the robustness of PV regression and possible conversion between the two effect measures.ConclusionsDifference in RMST is more interpretable than time-varying HR. The performance supports KM method and PV regression to be the preferred ones in RMST-based methods. IPCW regression can be an alternative sensitivity analysis. We encourage adoption of both traditional methods and RMST-based methods to present effects of covariates comprehensively.
| S-EPMC9812622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo use restricted mean survival time, which summarizes treatment effects in terms of event-free time over a fixed time period, to evaluate the benefit of pravastatin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults.DesignSecondary analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial-Lipid-Lowering Trial (ALLHAT-LLT).SettingAmbulatory setting.ParticipantsIndividuals aged 65 and older (mean aged 71, 49% female) free of cardiovascular disease (N=2,867).InterventionPravastatin 40 mg/d (n=1,467) versus usual care (n=1,400).MeasurementsWe estimated the difference in RMST for total and coronary heart disease (CHD)-free survival between the pravastatin and usual care groups over the 6-year trial period and used parametric survival models to estimate RMST differences projected over 10 years.ResultsOver 6 years, individuals treated with pravastatin lived (RMST 2,008.1 days), on average, 33.7 fewer days than those receiving usual care (RMST 2,041.8 days) (difference -33.7 days, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-67.0 to -0.5 days, p=.047). Pravastatin-treated individuals lived RMST 2,088.1 days), on average, 18.7 more days free of CHD over 6 years than those receiving usual care (RMST 2,069.4 days), but this difference was not statistically significant (difference 18.7 days, 95% CI=-10.4-47.8 days, p=.21). The 10-year projection showed that pravastatin-treated individuals would live 108.1 fewer days (95% CI=-204.5 to -14.1, p=.03) than those receiving usual care, although treated individuals would gain 77.9 days (95% CI=3.8-159.6, p=.046) of CHD-free survival.ConclusionRMST provides an intuitive and explicit way to express the effect of pravastatin therapy on CHD-free and overall survival in older adults free of cardiovascular disease. This measure allows a more personalized interpretation than hazard ratios of the benefits and risks of a medical intervention for decision-making.
| S-EPMC6181782 | biostudies-literature