Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Direct adjusted survival and cumulative incidence curves for observational studies

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 55, pages 538–543 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Series Editors' Note

Large randomized clinical trials testing the impact of subject-, disease- and transplant-related co-variates on outcomes amongst recipients of haematopoietic cell transplants are uncommon. For example, who is the best donor, which is the best pretransplant conditioning regimen or the best regimen to prevent or treat acute and/or chronic graft-versus-host disease. To answer these questions we often rely on analyses of data from large observational datasets such as those of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Such analyses have proved extremely important in advancing the field. However, in contrast to randomized trials, we cannot be certain potentially important prognostic or predictive co-variates are balanced between cohorts selected for comparison from an observational dataset, a limitation which can lead to incorrect conclusions. In the typescript which follows the authours describe a method to adjust for known imbalances in co-variates and get a closer approximation of the truth. They give two examples, the impact of a new pretransplant conditioning regimen on disease-free survival (DFS) in subjects with Ewing sarcoma and the impact of donor-type on treatment-related mortality (TRM) and leukaemia relapse in subjects with acute leukaemia. Direct adjusted survival and cumulative incidence function (CIF) analyses are an important step forward. These analyses can be done using available statistical packages and we encourage readers to use them rather than reporting unadjusted analyses. Finally, we must emphasize direct adjustment can only be done for know prognostic or predictive co-variates, not unknown co-variates. Unknown co-variates will be balanced in randomized trials which is why we do them. So direct adjustment is an important step forward but not a perfect substitute for randomized trials. But any step forward is important. To quote Laozi: 千里之行始於足下 (A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. Can J Stat. 1982;10:64–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Method. 1972;34:187–220.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Scheike TH, Zhang MJ. Flexible competing risks regression modeling and goodness-of-fit. Lifetime Data Anal. 2008;14:464–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Makuch RW. Adjusted survival curve estimation using covariates. J Chronic Dis. 1982;35:437–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chang IM, Gelman R, Pagano M. Corrected group prognostic curves and summary statistics. J Chronic Dis. 1982;35:669–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang X, Loberiza FR, Klein JP, Zhang MJ. A SAS macro for estimation of direct adjusted survival curves based on a stratified Cox regression model. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2007;88:95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang X, Zhang MJ. SAS macros for estimation of direct adjusted cumulative incidence curves under proportional subdistribution hazards models. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2011;101:87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen P, Tsiatis AA. Causal inference on the difference of the restricted mean life between two groups. Biometrics. 2001;57:1030–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zheng, C, Dai, R, Gale, RP, Zhang, M-J. Causal inference in randomized clinical trials. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0424-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Andersen PK, Borgan O, Gill R, Keiding N. Linear nonparametric tests for comparison of counting processes, with applications to censored survival data, correspondent paper. Int Stat Rev. 1982;50:219–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Elwood, JM, Causal relationships in medicine: a practical system for critical appraisal. Oxford Medical Publications. 1988, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. xi, 332 p.

  15. Brereton HD, Simon R, Pomeroy TC. Pretreatment serum lactate dehydrogenase predicting metastatic spread in Ewing’s sarcoma. Ann Intern Med. 1975;83:352–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Szydlo R, Goldman JM, Klein JP, Gale RP, Ash RC, Bach FH, et al. Results of allogeneic bone marrow transplants for leukemia using donors other than HLA-identical siblings. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1767–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Breslow N. Contribution to the discussion of paper by D.R. Cox. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Method. 1972;34:216–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nieto FJ, Coresh J. Adjusting survival curves for confounders: a review and a new method. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143:1059–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gail MH, Byar DP. Variance calculations for direct adjusted survival curves, with applications to testing for no treatment effect. Biom J. 1986;28:587–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang MJ, Klein JP. Confidence bands for the difference of two survival curves under proportional hazards model. Lifetime Data Anal. 2001;7:243–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang H, Zhang X. Confidence band for the differences between two direct adjusted survival curves. J Stat Softw. 2016;70(Code Snippet 2):17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Zhen-Huan Hu

  2. Centre for Haematology Research, Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Robert Peter Gale

  3. Division of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Mei-Jie Zhang

Authors
  1. Zhen-Huan Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Peter Gale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mei-Jie Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Peter Gale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

RPG is a part-time employee of Celgene Corporation. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, ZH., Peter Gale, R. & Zhang, MJ. Direct adjusted survival and cumulative incidence curves for observational studies. Bone Marrow Transplant 55, 538–543 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0552-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0552-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links