Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Common Misunderstandings of Survival Time Analysis
Milensu Shanyinde
Centre for Statistics in Medicine University of Oxford
2nd April 2012
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Outline
Introduction
Essential features of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves
Median survival times
Median follow-up times
Forest plots to present outcomes by subgroups
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Introduction
Survival data is common in cancer clinical trials
Survival analysis methods are necessary for such data
Primary endpoints are considered to be time until an event of interest occurs
Some evidence to indicate inconsistencies or insufficient information in presenting survival data
Poor presentation could lead to misinterpretation of the data
3
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Paper by DG Altman et al (1995)
Systematic review of appropriateness and presentation of survival analyses in clinical oncology journals
Assessed;
- Description of data analysed (length and quality of follow-up)
- Graphical presentation
4
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Cohort sample size 132, paper publishing survival analysis
Results;
- 48% did not include summary of follow-up time
- Median follow-up was frequently presented (58%)
but method used to compute it was rarely specified (31%)
Graphical presentation;
- 95% used the K-M method to present survival curves
- Censored observations were rarely marked (29%)
- Number at risk presented (8%)
5
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Paper by S Mathoulin-Pelissier et al (2008)
Systematic review of RCTs, evaluating the reporting of time to event end points in cancer trials
Assessed the reporting of;
- Number of events and censoring information
- Number of patients at risk
- Effect size by median survival time or Hazard ratio
- Summarising Follow-up
6
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Cohort sample size 125
Results;
- Survival analysis cited with K-M method (92%)
- Censoring was less defined (47%)
- Number of patients at risk was less defined (45%)
- Median Follow-up was reported (71%), but method used was not specified in almost all the papers
7
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Presenting Kaplan Meier survival curves
8
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 1: Presenting K-M survival curves
Patients with first relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia aged 1-18 years
Experiencing two types of relapse, isolated or combined
relapse
Cohort size N = 123, of which 80 (65%) had i-CNS relapse
58 patients experienced the event (death)
9
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 1 :- Presenting K-M survival curves
Assess overall survival by type of relapse (isolated and combined relapse)
K-M method estimates survival probability in both groups
Graphical display of the survival curves using the K-M method
To effectively display an informative plot as recommended
10
Log rank p = 0.3026
0.0
00
.25
0.5
00
.75
1.0
0
Overa
ll s
urv
ival p
rob
ab
ility
43 28 20 12 9 4Combined CNS80 53 38 25 12 10Isolated CNS
Number at risk
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time (months)
Isolated CNS Combined CNS
11
Log rank p = 0.3026
0.0
00
.25
0.5
00
.75
1.0
0
Ove
rall s
urv
ival p
rop
ort
ion
43 28 20 12 9 4Combined CNS80 53 38 25 12 10Isolated CNS
Number at risk
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time (months)
Isolated CNS Combined CNS
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Median survival times
12
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Median Survival time
Effect size is sometimes determined using Median survival time, if incorrectly presented could mislead results
Median survival time : - Time when half of the patients are event free
Median survival time estimated from the K-M survival curves.
Takes into account patients who have been censored, so all patients are included
13
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 2: Median Survival time
- Retrospective study of patients newly diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL)
- Cohort size N=224, data collected from 1997 – 2010 from five hospitals
- Patients comprising of 93 (42%) HIV+ patients
- 31 events (deaths) of which 15(48%) were HIV+ patients
- To compare overall survival of patients according to HIV status
14
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 2: Median Survival time
Principal Investigator proposed summary of observed survival times excluding censored patients “16 HIV– and 15 HIV + patients have died at a median time of 32 months (range: 5-97) and 9 months (range: 1-75) respectively, p= xx”
15
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 2: Median Survival time
“16 HIV– and 15 HIV + patients have died at a median time of 32 months (range: 5-97) and 9 months (range: 1-75) respectively, p= xx” “Five-year overall survival (OS) was 81% (95%CI: 69-89) and 88%
(95%CI:80-93) for HIV positive and negative patients respectively.“
16
log rank p=0.148
0.0
00
.25
0.5
00
.75
1.0
0
Ove
rall
surv
ival p
rob
ab
ility
131 70 28 0HIV-93 28 8 0HIV+
Number at risk
0 5 10 15Time (years)
HIV+ HIV-
0.0
00
.10
0.2
00
.30
Cu
mu
lative
perc
en
tag
e
131 70 28 0HIV-93 28 8 0HIV+
Number at risk
0 5 10 15Time (years)
HIV+ HIV-
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Median follow-up
17
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Median follow-up
Quantify length of follow-up of patients
The median follow-up is an indicator of how ‘mature’ your survival data is (e.g. how many months on ‘average’ the patients were followed since randomisation into the study).
Interpretation depends greatly on the time frame in which the study was carried out i.e. did we observe enough events
Several methods (yielding different results) could be used and need to report method used in analysis
18
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Method 1: Median follow-up
Method 1
- Median follow-up using all patients
- Have data on date of event or date patient last seen
- Estimated from observed follow-up times
- Advantages;
- Includes all patients
Disadvantages
- Unstable and biased towards patients with short follow-up
- Directly affected by times of observed events
19
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Method 2: Median follow-up
Method 2
- Median follow-up for censored patients or survivors
- Estimated from observed follow-up times, excluding patients with events
- Advantages;
- We are not aware of how long we could have followed the patient if they had not experienced the event
- Disadvantages;
- Loss of information
- Unstable estimate when number of survivors is small
20
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Method 3: Median follow-up
Method 3
- Reverse K-M method
- Estimated from the from K-M method, but events are reversed
- The event of interest here becomes being alive and death is censored
Advantages;
- Analogous to the K-M estimator
- Robust
Disadvantages;
- Challenging to understand
21
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 3: Median follow-up
Patients with first relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Two types of relapse, isolated or combined relapse
Cohort size N = 123, of which 80 (65%) had i-CNS relapse
To summarise median follow-up for the whole cohort
22
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 3: Median follow-up
Depending on which method you use different results are obtained. Consider this in your analysis.
23
Method Median follow-up estimate
All patients 33.9 months
Censored patients only 36.3 months
Reverse K-M 39.5 months (95%CI; 36.0 - 48.5)
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Forest plots
24
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Forest Plots
Recently used method of displaying lots of information in small space and getting the bigger picture across groups
We present Relative Risk, but could also be used to present Hazard Ratios or Odd Ratios
25
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Case 4: Forest plot
Patients with first relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, aged 1-18 years
Some concerns that age at relapse might have a big effect on outcome
26
Log rank p = 0.0108
0.0
00.2
50.5
00.7
51.0
0
Overa
ll surv
ival pro
babili
ty
45 24 18 9 6 4≥10
78 57 40 28 15 10<10
Number at risk
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time (months)
<10
≥10
Figure 3B
27
28
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Summary
Some recommended essential features when graphically displaying the survival curves
Median survival times and what it actually means
Report method used to obtain median follow-up
Graphical display of subgroups using Forest Plots to present outcomes
29
C S
M
CC SS
MM
References
DG Altman et al (1995), Review of survival analyses published in
cancer journals. British Journal of Cancer 72:511-518
S Mathoulin-Pelissier et al (2008) Survival End Point Reporting in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Review of Major Journals. J Clin Oncol 26:3721-3726
I Zweiner et al (2011), Survival Analysis. Medicine 108:163-169
M Schemper and TL Smith (1996), A Note on Quantifying Follow-up Studies of Failure Time. Controlled Clinical Trials 17: 343-346
30
C S
M
CC SS
MM
Acknowledgements
Sharon Love
Senior Statistician
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford
Dr Saha Vaskar
CRUK Professor of Paediatric Oncology
Academic Unit of Paediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Manchester
Dr Silvia Montoto Clinical Senior Lecturer/ Honorary Consultant Barts Cancer Institute- a CR-UK Centre of Excellence, Queen Mary University
31