Quantifying and estimating the predictive accuracy for censored time-to-event data with competing risks
Cai Wu
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Liang Li
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Correspondence
Liang Li, Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77054, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorCai Wu
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Liang Li
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Correspondence
Liang Li, Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77054, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This paper focuses on quantifying and estimating the predictive accuracy of prognostic models for time-to-event outcomes with competing events. We consider the time-dependent discrimination and calibration metrics, including the receiver operating characteristics curve and the Brier score, in the context of competing risks. To address censoring, we propose a unified nonparametric estimation framework for both discrimination and calibration measures, by weighting the censored subjects with the conditional probability of the event of interest given the observed data. The proposed method can be extended to time-dependent predictive accuracy metrics constructed from a general class of loss functions. We apply the methodology to a data set from the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension to evaluate the predictive accuracy of a prognostic risk score in predicting end-stage renal disease, accounting for the competing risk of pre–end-stage renal disease death, and evaluate its numerical performance in extensive simulation studies.
REFERENCES
- 1Baskin-Bey ES, Kremers W, Nyberg SL. A recipient risk score for deceased donor renal allocation. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007; 49(2): 284-293.
- 2Hernández D, Sánchez-Fructuoso A, González-Posada JM, et al.. Spanish late allograft dysfunction study group. A novel risk score for mortality in renal transplant recipients beyond the first posttransplant year. Transplantation. 2009; 88(6): 803-809.
- 3Lorent M, Giral M, Pascual M, et al.. Mortality prediction after the first year of kidney transplantation: an observational study on two European cohorts. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(5): e0155278.
- 4Saha P, Heagerty PJ. Time-dependent predictive accuracy in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics. 2010; 66(4): 999-1011.
- 5Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS. Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics. 2000; 56(2): 337-344.
- 6Blanche P, Dartigues J, Jacqmin-Gadda H. Review and comparison of ROC curve estimators for a time-dependent outcome with marker-dependent censoring. Biom J. 2013; 55(5): 687-704.
- 7Chiang CT, Hung H. Non-parametric estimation for time-dependent AUC. J Stat Plan Inference. 2010; 140(5): 1162-1174.
- 8Uno H, Cai T, Wei LJ. Evaluating prediction rules for t-year survivors with censored regression models. J Am Stat Assoc. 2007; 102(478): 527-537.
- 9Graf E, Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data. Stat Med. 1999; 18(17-18): 2529-2545.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/18<2529::AID-SIM274>3.0.CO;2-5 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 10Gerds TA, Schumacher M. Consistent estimation of the expected Brier score in general survival models with right-censored event times. Biom J. 2006; 48(6): 1029-1040.
- 11Korn EL, Simon R. Measures of explained variation for survival data. Stat Med. 1990; 9(5): 487-503.
- 12Schemper M, Henderson R. Predictive accuracy and explained variation in Cox regression. Biometrics. 2000; 56(1): 249-255.
- 13Brier G. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon Weather Rev. 1950; 78(1): 1-3.
10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
- 14Blanche P, Proust-Lima C, Loubère L, Berr C, Dartigues JF, Jacqmin-Gadda H. Quantifying and comparing dynamic predictive accuracy of joint models for longitudinal marker and time-to-event in presence of censoring and competing risks. Biometrics. 2015; 71(1): 102-113.
- 15Cortese G, Gerds TA, Andersen PK. Comparing predictions among competing risks models with time-dependent covariates. Stat Med. 2013; 32(18): 3089-3101.
- 16Parast L, Cheng SC, Cai T. Landmark prediction of long-term survival incorporating short-term event time information. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012; 107(500): 1492-1501.
- 17Zheng Y, Cai T, Jin Y, Feng Z. Evaluating prognostic accuracy of biomarkers under competing risk. Biometrics. 2012; 68(2): 388-396.
- 18Blanche P, Dartigues JF, Jacqmin-Gadda H. Estimating and comparing time-dependent areas under receiver operating characteristic curves for censored event times with competing risks. Stat Med. 2013; 32(30): 5381-5397.
- 19Liu Q, Tang G, Costantino JP, Chang CH. Robust prediction of the cumulative incidence function under non-proportional subdistribution hazards. Can J Stat. 2016; 44(2): 127-141.
- 20Schoop R, Beyersmann J, Schumacher M, Binder H. Quantifying the predictive accuracy of time-to-event models in the presence of competing risks. Biom J. 2011; 53(1): 88-112.
- 21van Houwelingen H, Putter H. Dynamic Prediction in Clinical Survival Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2011.
10.1201/b11311 Google Scholar
- 22Li L, Greene T, Hu B. A simple method to estimate the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve with right censored data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016. online.
- 23Beran R. Nonparametric Regression with Randomly Censored Survival Data. Berkeley: University of California; 1981.
- 24Dabrowska DM. Uniform consistency of the kernel conditional Kaplan-Meier estimate. Ann Stat. 1989; 17(3): 1157-1167.
- 25Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
- 26Geskus RB. Cause-specific cumulative incidence estimation and the fine and gray model under both left truncation and right censoring. Biometrics. 2011; 67(1): 39-49.
- 27Jacqmin-Gadda H, Blanche P, Chary E, Touraine C, Dartigues JF. Receiver operating characteristic curve estimation for time to event with semicompeting risks and interval censoring. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 25(6): 2750-2766.
- 28Schmid M, Hielscher T, Augustin T, Gefeller O. A robust alternative to the Schemper–Henderson estimator of prediction error. Biometrics. 2011; 67(2): 524-535.
- 29Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999; 94(446): 496-509.
- 30Bordes L, Gneyou KE. Uniform convergence of nonparametric regressions in competing risk models with right censoring. Stat Probabil Lett. 2011; 81(11): 1654-1663.
- 31Meyer MC. Inference using shape-restricted regression splines. Ann Appl Stat. 2008; 2(3): 1013-1033.
- 32Wright JT, Jr, Bakris G, Greene T, et al. African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Study Group. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2002; 288(19): 2421-2431.