Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Analysis of survival outcomes in haematopoietic cell transplant studies: Pitfalls and solutions

This article has been updated

Series Editor Introduction

The final article in our Statistics Series by de Wreede and colleagues deals with the important issue of survival analyses in general and in recipients of haematopoietic cell transplants specifically. At first glance analyzing survival should be simple. The endpoint is clear with rare exception, the subject is either alive or dead. Compare this to other less well defined transplant-related outcomes such as who has acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and of what grade or what is the cause of interstitial pneumonia. There is also the complexity of composite endpoints when one analyzes outcomes such as event-free (EFS) or relapse-free survival (RFS). Here you’re either alive or dead. Period. Alas, as it turns out things are not so simple. As the authours point out: it takes time to observe time. It is almost never possible to wait long enough for everyone in a study to die. (Some people who are cured by a transplant will outlive their physician and statistician.) Other subjects may not be followed until the end of the study, lost to follow-up or withdraw consent to participate. Often these are non-random events, muddy the water and make what seems a simple analysis of survival not so. Fortunately, de Wreede and colleagues discuss the issues of informative and non-informative censoring and time-dependent co-variates. And there are other nasty complexities such non-proportional hazards of death say when initially there is a survival disadvantage to transplants from transplant-related mortality followed in 1–2 years by a survival benefit. They emphasize the danger of considering only Hazard Ratio in this setting. Lastly, the authours discuss how to compare interventions such as conventional therapy versus a haematopoietic cell transplant when the endpoint of interest is survival. We think this article will be of considerable interest to readers of BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION and suggest you study it carefully. Survival analyses, seemingly simple, are a potential minefield. You don’t want to step on one. This article and the entire Statistics Series are available online at

Robert Peter Gale MD, PhD & Mei-Jie Zhang PhD.


The most important outcome of many studies of haematopoietic cell transplants is survival. The statistical field that deals with such outcomes is survival analysis. Methods developed in this field are also applicable to other outcomes where the occurrence and timing are important. Analysis of such time-to-event outcomes has special challenges because it takes time to observe time. The most important condition for unbiased estimation of a survival curve—non-informative censoring—is discussed along with methods to account for competing risks, a situation where multiple, mutually-exclusive endpoints are of interest. Techniques to compare survival outcomes between groups are reviewed, including the instance where it is unknown at baseline to which group a subject will belong later during follow-up (time-dependent covariates).

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

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival.
Fig. 2: Correct and incorrect Kaplan-Meier curves.
Fig. 3: Cumulative incidence curves for relapse (a) and non-relapse mortality (b) for experimental and standard treatment.
Fig. 4: Survival curves for two treatments with a Hazard Ratio of 1.55.
Fig. 5: Analyses for the impact of relapse on death.

Data availability

The data file used in this article can be obtained from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

  • 28 July 2022

    Abstract and Series Editor Introduction were not tagged correctly and were thus presented as one part.


  1. Iacobelli S, EBMT Statistical Committee. Suggestions on the use of statistical methodologies in studies of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2013;48:S1–37. Suppl 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. Techniques for censored and truncated data. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2003.

  3. Clark TG, Bradburn MJ, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival analysis part I: basic concepts and first analyses. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:232–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bradburn MJ, Clark TG, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival Analysis Part II: Multivariate data analysis—an introduction to concepts and methods. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:431–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradburn MJ, Clark TG, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival Analysis Part III: Multivariate data analysis—choosing a model and assessing its adequacy and fit. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:605–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clark TG, Bradburn MJ, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival Analysis Part IV: Further concepts and methods in survival analysis. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:781–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Satagopan JM, Ben-Porat L, Berwick M, Robson M, Kutler D, Auerbach AD. A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1229–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gale RP, Zhang MJ. Statistical analyses of clinical trials in haematopoietic cell transplantation or why there is a strong correlation between people drowning after falling out of a fishing boat and marriage rate in Kentucky. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zheng C, Dai R, Gale RP, Zhang MJ. Causal inference in randomized clinical trials. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hu ZH, Peter Gale R, Zhang MJ. Direct adjusted survival and cumulative incidence curves for observational studies. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:538–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gauthier J, Wu QV, Gooley TA. Cubic splines to model relationships between continuous variables and outcomes: a guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:675–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Othus M, Gale RP, Hourigan CS, Walter RB. Statistics and measurable residual disease (MRD) testing: uses and abuses in hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:843–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moodie EEM, Krakow EF. Precision medicine: Statistical methods for estimating adaptive treatment strategies. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:1890–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu ZH, Wang HL, Gale RP, Zhang MJA. SAS macro for estimating direct adjusted survival functions for time-to-event data with or without left truncation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2022;57:6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling survival data: extending the Cox Model. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2000. 372 p.

  16. Gerds TA. prodlim: Product-Limit estimation for censored event history analysis. 2019. Available from:

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  19. Snowden JA, Saccardi R, Orchard K, Ljungman P, Duarte RF, Labopin M, et al. Benchmarking of survival outcomes following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of existing processes and the introduction of an international system from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT and EBMT (JACIE). Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:681–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Putter H, Eikema DJ, de Wreede LC, McGrath E, Sánchez-Ortega I, Saccardi R, et al. Benchmarking survival outcomes: A funnel plot for survival data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2022 Mar;09622802221084130.

  21. Schetelig J, de Wreede LC, van Gelder M, Koster L, Finke J, Niederwieser D, et al. Late treatment-related mortality versus competing causes of death after allogeneic transplantation for myelodysplastic syndromes and secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2019;33:686–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim HT, Armand P. Clinical endpoints in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation studies: the cost of freedom. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2013;19:860–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med. 2007;26:2389–430.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Andersen PK, Geskus RB, de Witte T, Putter H. Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:861–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greinix HT, Eikema DJ, Koster L, Penack O, Yakoub-Agha I, Montoto S, et al. Improved outcome of patients with graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for hematologic malignancies over time: an EBMT mega-file study. Haematologica 2022;107:1054–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Latta RB. A Monte Carlo study of some two-sample rank tests with censored data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1981;76:713–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kellerer AM, Chmelevsky D. Small-sample properties of censored-data rank tests. Biometrics 1983;39:675–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hothorn T, Hornik K, van de Wiel MA, Zeileis A. Implementing a class of permutation tests: The coin Package. J Stat Softw. 2008;28:1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van Houwelingen H, Putter H. Dynamic prediction in clinical survival analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012. 250 p.

  30. Schemper M. Cox analysis of survival data with non-proportional hazard functions. J R Stat Soc Ser Stat 1992;41:455–65.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Felizzi F, Paracha N, Pöhlmann J, Ray J. Mixture cure models in oncology: a tutorial and practical guidance. PharmacoEconomics - Open. 2021;5:143–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pohar Perme M, Pavlic K. Nonparametric relative survival analysis with the R Package relsurv. J Stat Softw. 2018;87:1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hsieh PY, Liu CJ, Teng CJ. Immortal time bias in retrospective analysis: comment on “Efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.”. Blood Cancer J 2015;5:e283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD. Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 1983;1:710–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fisher LD, Lin DY. Time-dependent covariates in the Cox proportional-hazards regression model. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:145–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang Z, Reinikainen J, Adeleke KA, Pieterse ME, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. Time-varying covariates and coefficients in Cox regression models. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6:121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dafni U. Landmark analysis at the 25-year landmark point. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4:363–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Morgan CJ. Landmark analysis: A primer. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26:391–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Brand R, Putter H, van Biezen A, Niederwieser D, Martino R, Mufti G, et al. Comparison of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and non-transplant approaches in elderly patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome: optimal statistical approaches and a critical appraisal of clinical results using non-randomized data. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e74368.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Robin M, de Wreede LC, Padron E, Bakunina K, Fenaux P, Koster L, et al. Role of allogeneic transplantation in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: an international collaborative analysis. Blood (accepted 2022).

  41. Kragh Andersen P, Pohar Perme M, van Houwelingen HC, Cook RJ, Joly P, Martinussen T, et al. Analysis of time-to-event for observational studies: Guidance to the use of intensity models. Stat Med. 2021;40:185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. de Wreede LC, Putter H. Valkuilen en oplossingen bij de overlevingsduuranalyse in hematologische studies/Pitfalls and solutions in survival analysis for hematological studies. NTVH. 2017;14:118–24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Robert P. Gale (Imperial College, London, UK) and Mei-Jie Zhang (Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA) for their invitation to contribute to their series of papers about statistical topics and we thank Dr Gale for his suggestions about content and wording that have improved the manuscript. We thank Michel van Gelder (MUMC, Maastricht, the Netherlands) and Katharina Schmidt-Brücken (Technical University Dresden, Germany) for their critical review of previous versions of this manuscript. This article is a reworked version of an article in Dutch [42].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



LdW and HP designed the study, wrote the manuscript, and analyzed the data. JS critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liesbeth C. de Wreede.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Wreede, L.C., Schetelig, J. & Putter, H. Analysis of survival outcomes in haematopoietic cell transplant studies: Pitfalls and solutions. Bone Marrow Transplant 57, 1428–1434 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links