Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Regression analysis of interval censored competing risk data using a pseudo-value approach

  • Kim, Sooyeon (Department of Statistics, Sookmyung Women's University) ;
  • Kim, Yang-Jin (Department of Statistics, Sookmyung Women's University)
  • Received : 2016.08.11
  • Accepted : 2016.11.20
  • Published : 2016.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Interval censored data often occur in an observational study where the subject is followed periodically. Instead of observing an exact failure time, two inspection times that include it are available. There are several methods to analyze interval censored failure time data (Sun, 2006). However, in the presence of competing risks, few methods have been suggested to estimate covariate effect on interval censored competing risk data. A sub-distribution hazard model is a commonly used regression model because it has one-to-one correspondence with a cumulative incidence function. Alternatively, Klein and Andersen (2005) proposed a pseudo-value approach that directly uses the cumulative incidence function. In this paper, we consider an extension of the pseudo-value approach into the interval censored data to estimate regression coefficients. The pseudo-values generated from the estimated cumulative incidence function then become response variables in a generalized estimating equation. Simulation studies show that the suggested method performs well in several situations and an HIV-AIDS cohort study is analyzed as a real data example.

Keywords

References

  1. Andersen PK, Klein JP, and Rosthoj S (2003). Generalised linear models for correlated pseudo-observations, with applications to multi-state models, Biometrika, 90, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/90.1.15
  2. Barrett JK, Siannis F, and Farewell VT (2011). A semi-competing risks model for data with interval-censoring and informative observation: an application to the MRC cognitive function and ageing study, Statistics in Medicine, 30, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4071
  3. Commenges D (2002). Inference for multi-state models from interval-censored data, Statistical Methods and Medical Research, 11, 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280202sm279ra
  4. Dempster AP, Laird NM, and Rubin DB (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 39, 1-38.
  5. Fine JP and Gray RJ (1999). A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 496-509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144
  6. Geskus RB (2015). Data Analysis with Competing Risks and Intermediate States, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  7. Goetghebeur E and Ryan L (1995). Analysis of competing risks survival data when some failure types are missing, Biometrika, 82, 821-833. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/82.4.821
  8. Graw F, Gerds TA, and Schumacher M (2009). On pseudo-values for regression analysis in competing risks models, Lifetime Data Analysis, 15, 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-008-9107-z
  9. Hudgens MG, Li C, and Fine JP (2014). Parametric likelihood inference for interval censored competing risks data, Biometrics, 70, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12109
  10. Hudgens MG, Longini IM, Vanichseni S, Hu DJ, Kitayaporn D, Mock PA, Halloran ME, Satten GA, Choopanya K, and Mastro TD (2002). Subtype-specific transmission probabilities for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 among injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand, American Journal of Epidemiology, 155, 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/155.2.159
  11. Hudgens MG, Satten GA, and Longini IM (2001). Nonparametric maximum likelihood estimation for competing risks survival data subject to interval censoring and truncation, Biometrics, 57, 74-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.00074.x
  12. Jacobsen M and Martinussen T (2016). A note on the large sample properties of estimators based on generalized linear models for correlated pseudo-observation, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 43, 845-862. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjos.12212
  13. Jeong JH and Fine J (2006). Direct parametric inference for the cumulative incidence function, Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics), 55, 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2006.00532.x
  14. Jewell NP and Kalbfleisch JD (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of ordered multinomial parameters, Biostatistics, 5, 291-306. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/5.2.291
  15. Jewell NP, Van der Laan M, and Henneman T (2003). Nonparametric estimation from current status data with competing risks, Biometrika, 90, 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/90.1.183
  16. Kim YJ (2014). Regression analysis of bivariate current status data using a multistate model, Communications in Statistics - Computation and Simulation, 43, 462-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2012.705937
  17. Klein JP and Andersen PK (2005). Regression modeling of competing risks data based on pseudo values of the cumulative incidence function, Biometrics, 61, 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2005.031209.x
  18. Liang KY and Zeger SL (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear model, Biometrika, 73, 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
  19. Lindsey JC and Ryan LM (1998). Methods for interval censored data, Statistics in Medicine, Statistics in Medicine, 17, 219-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980130)17:2<219::AID-SIM735>3.0.CO;2-O
  20. Lu K and Tsiatis AA (2001). Multiple imputation methods for estimating regression coefficients in the competing risks model with missing cause of failure, Biometrics, 57, 1191-1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.01191.x
  21. Moreno-Betancur M and Latouche A (2013). Regression modeling of the cumulative incidence function with missing cause of failure using pseudo-values, Statistics in Medicine, 32, 3206-3223. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5755
  22. Peto R (1973). Experimental survival curves for interval-censored data, Applied Statistics, 22, 86-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2346307
  23. Schick A and Yu Q (2000). Consistency of the GMLE with mixed case interval-censored data, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 27, 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9469.00177
  24. Sun J (2006). The Statistical Analysis of Interval-Censored Failure Time Data, Springer, New York.
  25. Sun J and Shen J (2009). Efficient estimation for the proportional hazard model with competing risks and current status data, Canadian Journal of Statistics, 37, 592-606. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjs.10033
  26. Turnbull BW (1974). Nonparametric estimation of survivorship function with doubly censored data, Journal of American Statistical Association, 69, 169-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10480146