Survival Analysis: Alternate Approach
Main Article Content
Abstract
Existing models of survival analysis dealing with group data have advantages and limitations too. Assumptions of the models need to be verified. Problem arises when one or more assumptions of a model are not satisfied. Methods of survival analysis, inter alia assumes homogeneity of treatment and related factors during the follow-up periods. However, in practice, such assumptions do not hold. The proposed method (Geometric mean approach) is non-parametric, simple and satisfies desired properties from measurement theory angle. Focusing on individual patient, it helps in mathematical diagnosis of disease like cancer of a particular type, disease intensity in terms of the chosen measurable factors/variables, identification of bad prognosis factors of an individual and quantification of progress or deterioration of a patient over time (analogous to hazard function of an individual). The method can help the researchers and practitioners to make meaningful analysis and drawing meaningful conclusions including estimation of hazard function of sample patients without making any assumption. Empirical verifications of the proposed method along with its robustness and estimation of hazard function and clinical validations are proposed as future studies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
I. Abdel-Qadir,H.; Fang,J.; Lee, DS.; Tu, Jack V.; et al. (2018): Importance of Considering Competing Risks in Time-to-Event Analyses, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 11 (7); 1 - 11. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004580
II. Abeysekera, W. W. M., & Sooriyarachchi, M. R. (2009): Use of Schoenfeld’s global test to test the proportional hazards assumption in the Cox proportional hazards model: an application to a clinical study. Journal of the Naional Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, 37(1), 41–51.
III. Alf, Edward F. and Grossberg, John M. (1979): The geometric mean: Confidence limits and significance tests.Perception& Psychophysics, 26 (5); 419–421
IV. Ata, N., & S¨ozer, M. T. (2007): Cox Regression Models with nonproportional Hazards
V. applied to Lung Cancer Survival Data. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics Statistics, 36(2), 157–167.
VI. Babińska1, M.; Chudek,J.; Chełmecka, E.; Janik, M.; Klimek, K. and Owczarek, A. (2015): Limitations of Cox Proportional Hazards Analysis in Mortality Prediction of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric. 43. 10.1515/slgr-2015-0040. DOI:10.1515/slgr-2015-0040
VII. Blagoev KB, Wilkerson J, Fojo T. (2012): Hazard ratios in cancer clinical trials–a primer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9:178–183
VIII. Bland JM, Altman DG.(2004): The logrank test. BMJ. ; 328(7447): 1073 10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1073
IX. Bradburn MJ, Clark TG, Love SB, Altman DG. (2003): Survival analysis part III: multivariate data analysis—choosing a model and assessing its adequacy and fit. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:605–611
X. Chakrabartty, SN. (2020): Improve Quality of Pain Measurement, Health Sciences, Vol.1, ID 259, 1 – 6. DOI: 10.15342/hs.2020.259
XI. Chakrabartty, Satyendra Nath (2020b): Better Use of Scales as Measuring Instruments in Mental Disorders. Journal of Neurology Research Review & Reports. SRC/JNRRR-128. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47363/ JNRRR/2020-(2)128
XII. Clark TG, Bradburn MJ, Love SB, Altman DG. (2003): Survival analysis part I: basic concepts and first analyses. Br J Cancer. 2003; 89:232–238.
XIII. Ebert, U. and H. Welsch, (2004): Meaningful Environmental Indices: a Social Choice Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47: 270-283.
XIV. Fabsic P, Evgeny V, Zemmer K, editors. Seminar in Statistics: Survival Analysis Presentation 3: The Cox proportional hazard model and its characteristics. Zurich: 2011.
XV. Fine JP and Gray RJ. (1999): A proportional hazards model for the sub distribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc1999; 94: 496 - 509.
XVI. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, May S. (2008): Model development. In: Applied Survival Analysis:2nd Ed Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 132–168.
XVII. Kay R, and Kinnersley N. (2002): On the use of the accelerated failure time model as an alternative to the proportional hazards model in the treatment of time to event data: a case study in influenza. Drug Inf. jr.;36: 571–579.
XVIII. Kim, Haesook T. (2007): Cumulative Incidence in Competing Risks Data and Competing Risks Regression Analysis, Clin Cancer Res;559 13(2), 559 – 565. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1210.
XIX. Klein JP, Andersen PK. (2005): Regression modeling of competing risks data based on pseudovalues of the cumulative incidence function. Biometrics;61: 223 - 229.
XX. Mamudu, L and Tsokos, CP. (2020): Data-Driven Statistical Modeling and Analysis of the Survival Times of Multiple Myeloma Cancer, Health Science Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1: 693; DOI: 10.36648/1791-809X.14.1.693
XXI. Miller, R.G. (1981): Survival Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
XXII. Rajkumar SV, Kumar S (2016): Multiple myeloma: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc 91: 101-119.
XXIII. Raza S, Safyan RA, Rosenbaum E, Bowman AS, Lentzsch S (2017): Optimizing current and emerging therapies in multiple myeloma: a guide for the hematologist. Ther Adv Hematol 8: 55-70.
XXIV. Sonneveld P, De Wit E, Moreau P (2017): How have evolutions in strategies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma translated into improved outcomes for patients? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 112: 153-170.
XXV. Wei, L. J. (1992): The accelerated failure time model: A useful alternative to the cox regression model in survival analysis, Statistics in Medicine, Vol.11, Issue 14-15, 1871-1879.