Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Optimal Survival Analyses With Prevalent and Incident Patients

Published 22 Mar 2024 in stat.ME | (2403.15302v2)

Abstract: Period-prevalent cohorts are often used for their cost-saving potential in epidemiological studies of survival outcomes. Under this design, prevalent patients allow for evaluations of long-term survival outcomes without the need for long follow-up, whereas incident patients allow for evaluations of short-term survival outcomes without the issue of left-truncation. In most period-prevalent survival analyses from the existing literature, patients have been recruited to achieve an overall sample size, with little attention given to the relative frequencies of prevalent and incident patients and their statistical implications. Furthermore, there are no existing methods available to rigorously quantify the impact of these relative frequencies on estimation and inference and incorporate this information into study design strategies. To address these gaps, we develop an approach to identify the optimal mix of prevalent and incident patients that maximizes precision over the entire estimated survival curve, subject to a flexible weighting scheme. In addition, we prove that inference based on the weighted log-rank test or Cox proportional hazards model is most powerful with an entirely prevalent or incident cohort, and we derive theoretical formulas to determine the optimal choice. Simulations confirm the validity of the proposed optimization criteria and show that substantial efficiency gains can be achieved by recruiting the optimal mix of prevalent and incident patients. The proposed methods are applied to assess waitlist outcomes among kidney transplant candidates.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (17)
  1. Factors affecting survival in Alzheimer’s disease. Psychological Medicine, 21(2):363–370.
  2. shiny: Web Application Framework for R. R package version 1.7.5.1.
  3. Sample-size calculations for the cox proportional hazards regression model with nonbinary covariates. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21(6):552–560.
  4. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. New York, NY: Wiley, second edition.
  5. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53(282):457–481.
  6. The dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS): Design, data elements, and methodology. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 44:7–15.
  7. Assumptions regarding right censoring in the presence of left truncation. Statistics & Probability Letters, 87:12–17.
  8. Accuracy loss due to selection bias in cohort studies with left truncation. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 27(5):491–502.
  9. Schoenfeld, D. (1981). The asymptotic properties of nonparametric tests for comparing survival distributions. Biometrika, 68(1):316–319.
  10. Schoenfeld, D. (1983). Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model. Biometrics, 39(2):499–503.
  11. A note on the product-limit estimator under right censoring and left truncation. Biometrika, 74(4):883–886.
  12. United States Renal Data System (2023). 2023 USRDS Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD.
  13. Statistical methods for comparing mortality among ESRD patients: Examples of regional/international variations. Kidney International, 57:S19–S27.
  14. Wang, M.-C. (1991). Nonparametric estimation from cross-sectional survival data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86(413):130–143.
  15. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. New England Journal of Medicine, 341:1725–1730.
  16. Benefits of combining prevalent and incident cohorts: An application to myotonic dystrophy. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 28(10-11):3333–3345.
  17. Designing therapeutic cancer vaccine trials with delayed treatment effect. Statistics in Medicine, 36(4):592–605.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.