Abstract
The accelerated failure time (AFT) model is a common method for estimating the effect of a covariate directly on a patient’s survival time. In some cases, death is the final (absorbing) state of a progressive multi-state process, however when the survival time for a subject is censored, traditional AFT models ignore the intermediate information from the subject’s most recent disease state despite its relevance to the mortality process. We propose a method to estimate an AFT model for survival time to the absorbing state that uses the additional data on intermediate state transition times as auxiliary information when a patient is right censored. The method extends the Gehan AFT estimating equation by conditioning on each patient’s censoring time and their disease state at their censoring time. With simulation studies, we demonstrate that the estimator is empirically unbiased, and can improve efficiency over commonly used estimators that ignore the intermediate states.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aalen O, Borgan O, Gjessing H (2008) Survival and event history analysis: a process point of view. Springer, Berlin
Aalen OO, Johansen S (1978) An empirical transition matrix for non-homogeneous Markov chains based on censored observations. Scand J Stat 5:141–150
Allignol A, Schumacher M, Beyersmann J et al (2011) Empirical transition matrix of multistate models: the ETM package. J Stat Softw 38(4):1–15
Berry JD, Shefner JM, Conwit R, Schoenfeld D, Keroack M, Felsenstein D, Krivickas L, David WS, Vriesendorp F, Pestronk A et al (2013) Design and initial results of a multi-phase randomized trial of ceftriaxone in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. PLoS ONE 8(4):e61177
Brown B, Wang YG (2007) Induced smoothing for rank regression with censored survival times. Stat Med 26(4):828–836
Cedarbaum JM, Stambler N, Malta E, Fuller C, Hilt D, Thurmond B, Nakanishi A (1999) The alsfrs-r: a revised als functional rating scale that incorporates assessments of respiratory function. J Neurol Sci 169(1):13–21
Chiou SH, Kang S, Kim J, Yan J (2014) Marginal semiparametric multivariate accelerated failure time model with generalized estimating equations. Lifetime Data Anal 20(4):599–618
Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 34(2):187–220
de Uña-Álvarez J, Meira-Machado L (2015) Nonparametric estimation of transition probabilities in the non-markov illness-death model: a comparative study. Biometrics 12:325
Efron B (1967) The two sample problem with censored data. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol 4. Prentice-Hall, Engewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 831–853
Fygenson M, Ritov Y (1994) Monotone estimating equations for censored data. Ann Stat 22:732–746
Gehan EA (1965) A generalized wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika 52(1–2):203–223
Heller G (2007) Smoothed rank regression with censored data. J Am Stat Assoc 102(478):552
Huang Y (2002) Censored regression with the multistate accelerated sojourn times model. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Statistical Methodology) 64(1):17–29
Jin Z, Lin D, Wei L, Ying Z (2003) Rank-based inference for the accelerated failure time model. Biometrika 90(2):341–353
Jin Z, Shao Y, Ying Z (2014) A monte carlo method for variance estimation for estimators based on induced smoothing. Biostatistics 16:179
Johnson LM, Strawderman RL (2009) Induced smoothing for the semiparametric accelerated failure time model: asymptotics and extensions to clustered data. Biometrika 96:577
Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (2011) The statistical analysis of failure time data, vol 360. Wiley, London
Lin JS, Wei L (1992) Linear regression analysis for multivariate failure time observations. J Am Stat Assoc 87(420):1091–1097
Lu X, Tsiatis AA (2008) Improving the efficiency of the log-rank test using auxiliary covariates. Biometrika 95(3):679–694
Mantel N (1966) Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep Part 1 50(3):163–170
Meira-Machado L, de Uña-Álvarez J, Cadarso-Suárez C (2006) Nonparametric estimation of transition probabilities in a non-markov illness-death model. Lifetime Data Anal 12(3):325–344
Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7(4):308–313
Peto R, Peto J (1972) Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures. J R Stat Soc Ser A (General) 135(2):185–207
Prentice RL (1978) Linear rank tests with right censored data. Biometrika 65(1):167–179
R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
Ramchandani R, Finkelstein DM, Schoenfeld DA (2015) A model-informed rank test for right-censored data with intermediate states. Stat Med 34:1454
Tsiatis AA (1990) Estimating regression parameters using linear rank tests for censored data. Ann Stat 18:354–372
Van der Vaart AW (2000) Asymptotic statistics, vol 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Rebecca Betensky for her valuable feedback as a dissertation committee member. This work was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center under NIH National Center for Research Resources Grant UL1 RR025758, the Statistical and Data Management Center of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group under the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Grant UM1 AI068634 and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Grant No. T32NS048005).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
A Appendix
A Appendix
1.1 A.1 Proof that \(\beta \) parameters for each transition are equal when individual transitions and overall survival time follow an AFT model
Consider a progressive model of \(D+1\) states as in Fig. 1a. Let \(T_{gh}\) indicate a continuous random variable for time to transition from state g to state h. Let \(T = T_{01} + T_{12} + \cdots + T_{D-1,D}\). Further, suppose \(T = \exp (\beta _0 X + \varepsilon )\), where \(\varepsilon \) is independent of X. Let \(T_{g-1,g} = \exp (\beta _{g}X + \varepsilon _g)\) for \(g=1,\ldots ,D\), where \(\varepsilon _g\) is also independent of X. Then we have:
Since \(T = \exp (\beta _0X)\exp (\varepsilon )\), It follows that \(\varepsilon = \log \lbrace \exp [(\beta _{1} - \beta _{0})X +\varepsilon _1] + \cdots + \exp [(\beta _{D} - \beta _{0})X +\varepsilon _D] \rbrace \). Without loss of generality, suppose that \(\beta _1 \ne \beta _0\). Then we have that \(\varepsilon = \log \lbrace \exp [cX +\varepsilon _1] + \cdots + \exp [(\beta _{D} - \beta _{0})X +\varepsilon _D] \rbrace \) where c is a non-zero constant. In this case, \(\varepsilon \) is not independent of X and cannot be independent of X unless \(\varepsilon _1\) is not independent of X. But by our model assumptions, \(\varepsilon \) and \(\varepsilon _g\) are independent of X for \(g=1,\ldots ,D\), so it must be the case that \(\beta _1 = 0.\) Similarly, we will have that \(\beta _2 = \cdots = \beta _D = \beta _0\).
A similar argument can be used for progressive models that have the form in Fig. 1b. We will show the case of the progressive illness-death model (Fig. 1c), but the proof is analogous for models with a larger state space. Suppose we have a 3-state model where subjects can transition from state \(0 \rightarrow 1\), \(1 \rightarrow 2\), and \(0 \rightarrow 2\), with state 2 as the absorbing state. As before, let \(T_{gh}\) denote the random variable for the direct transition from state g to state h, let T denote the absorbing failure time from origin, and assume \(T = \exp (\beta _0 X + \varepsilon )\), where \(\varepsilon \) is independent of X. Let \(T_{gh} = \exp (\beta _{gh}X + \varepsilon _{gh})\) for \(g=0,1\), \(h=1,2\), and \(h>g\), where \(\varepsilon _{gh}\) is also independent of X. We have that
Since \(T = \exp (\beta _0 X + \varepsilon )\), it follows that \(\varepsilon = \log \big \lbrace I[\exp (\beta _{01}X +\varepsilon _{01}) < \exp (\beta _{02}X +\varepsilon _{02})]\lbrace \exp [(\beta _{01}-\beta _0)X +\varepsilon _{01}] + \exp [(\beta _{12}-\beta _0)X +\varepsilon _{12}]\rbrace + I[\exp (\beta _{01}X +\varepsilon _{01}) > \exp (\beta _{02}X+\varepsilon _{02})]\lbrace \exp [(\beta _{02}-\beta _0)X +\varepsilon _{02}]\rbrace \big \rbrace \). In order for the indicator functions to be independent of X, we would need \(\beta _{01}=\beta _{02}\), and in order for the non-indicator terms to be independent of X, we need \(\beta _{01} = \beta _{12}=\beta _{02} = \beta _0\). If at least one of \(\beta _{01}, \beta _{12}, \beta _{02}\) are not equal to \(\beta _0\), then \(\varepsilon \) is not independent of X, which contradicts our model assumption.
1.2 A.2 Justification for estimating equation
Consider the formulation of the estimating equation given in (5):
We can think of the probabilities as expectations of an indicator function conditional on what we observe:
where the expectation is taken with respect to the distribution of the residual failure times conditional on the disease states at the residual follow-up times. This function can be seen to be centered at 0 when \(\beta = \beta _0\), as its expectation is:
where the outside expectation is taken with respect to the distribution of the observed states at the residual follow-up times. By the law of iterated expectations, this is simply equal to:
Since \(\tilde{e_i}^{\beta }\) and \(\tilde{e_j}^{\beta }\) are i.i.d. and independent of \(X_i\) and \(X_j\) when \(\beta = \beta _0\), it follows that the expectation is 0 under boundedness of the residual failure time and log censoring time densities, and the covariates.
1.3 A.3 Variance estimation for \(\hat{\beta }\): Gaussian quadrature method
First, we give the assumptions in Jin et al. for validity of their Monte Carlo Method and Gaussian Quadrature Method of variance estimation (Jin et al. 2014). Suppose we denote the estimating equation as \(U(\beta )\), and \(\beta _0\) is the true parameter vector:
Assumption 1\(\sqrt{n}U(\beta _0)\) is asymptotically normal with mean 0 and covariancematrix D.
Assumption 2 The estimator \(\hat{\beta }\) is root-n consistent, and \(\sqrt{n}(\hat{\beta } - \beta _0)\) is asymptotically normal with mean 0 and covariance matrix V.
Assumption 3\(U(\beta )\) is locally asymptotically linear in a neighborhood of \(\beta _0\).
Let B be the limiting slope matrix of \(U(\beta _0)\). B is difficult to estimate because the estimating function U is not smooth in \(\beta \). First, we define \(\varGamma = n^{-1/2}V^{1/2}\), where \(V = B^{-1}DB^{-1}\), i.e. the variance of \(\sqrt{n}(\hat{\beta } - \beta _0)\). We are ultimately interested in estimating \(\varGamma \), which depends on B. Jin et al. show that the derivative B of a smoothed version of the estimating equation satisfies the following expression:
We can use Gaussian quadrature or Monte Carlo methods to approximate \(B(\varGamma ; \beta )\) and evaluate \(\varGamma \), but notice that \(B(\varGamma ; \beta )\) also depends on \(\varGamma \), resulting in an iterative algorithm. We describe our implementation of the algorithm for the Gaussian Quadrature Method below:
- 1.
Calculate an estimate \(\hat{D}\) for D, the covariance matrix of \(\sqrt{n}U(\beta )\). This can be done using the formula in (6), or a bootstrap procedure. Set \(\varGamma _0 = n^{-1/2}I\).
- 2.
Suppose the dimension of \(\beta \) is p. Choose m nodes \(x_j\), \(j = 1,\ldots ,m\), based on one-dimensional Gauss–Hermite quadrature, and let \(z_1,z_2,\ldots ,z_{m^p}\) each be a \(p \times 1\) vector for a unique single combination of the m nodes among p points. For example, if we choose 5 1-D Gauss–Hermite quadrature nodes, and we had 2 \(\beta 's\) to estimate, we would have \(5^2\) unique vectors \(z_j\) of 2-dimensional nodes for estimating the (double) integral of interest; these two dimensional nodes would be \((x_1, x_1), (x_1, x_2),\ldots ,(x_2, x_1),\ldots ,(x_5, x_5)\) (see Fig. 2). Let \(w_j\) be the \(p \times 1\) vector of Gaussian quadrature weights corresponding to the nodes in \(z_j\). Thus, we will have a grid of points over which we approximate the p-dimensional integral \(B(\varGamma ;\beta )\). We are interested in computing the integral, \(\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }})^p e^{-x_1^2/2}\cdots e^{-x_p^2/2}[U(\beta + \varGamma x)x^T\varGamma ^{-1}]dx_1\cdots dx_p\). Since Gauss–Hermite quadrature computes integrals of the form \(\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{-x^2}f(x)dx\), we use a change of variable on x so that we can write the integral in this form. Set \(x^{*} = \sqrt{2}x\), then the integral becomes \(\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }})^pe^{-x_1^{*2}}\cdots e^{-x_p^{*2}}[U(\beta + \varGamma x^{*})x^{*T}\varGamma ^{-1}]dx_1^{*}\cdots dx_p^{*}\). Thus, let \(z_j^{*} = \sqrt{2}z_j\) for all j, and proceed.
- 3.
Compute at the \(k\mathrm{th}\) step:
$$\begin{aligned} B_k = B\left( \varGamma _{k-1}; \hat{\beta }\right) = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }^p}\sum _{j=1}^m U\left( \hat{\beta } + \varGamma _{k-1}z_j^{*}\right) z_j^{*T}\varGamma _{k-1}^{-1}\prod _{l=1}^p w_{jl} \end{aligned}$$(13)where \(w_{jl}\) is the \(l\mathrm{th}\) element of the weight vector \(w_j\).
- 4.
Calculate \(G_k = B_k^{-1}\hat{D}B_k^{-1}\) and let \(\varGamma _k = G_k^{1/2}n^{-1/2}\).
- 5.
Repeat steps 3 and 4 until \(\varGamma _k\) converges within a specified tolerance level.
The diagonal of the matrix \(\varGamma _k\) at the last iteration yields the standard error estimates for the vector \(\hat{\beta }\). The MCM is the same as the above method, except that in step 2 the \(z_j\) vectors are randomly generated from a standard multivariate normal distribution, and in step 3 \(B_k\) is estimated as \(B(\varGamma _{k-1}; \hat{\beta }) = \frac{1}{m}\sum _{j=1}^m U(\hat{\beta } + \varGamma _{k-1}z_j)z_j^{T}\varGamma _{k-1}^{-1}\). In simulations, we found that as few as 8–10 Gauss–Hermite nodes worked reasonably well for the variance estimation when there is a single covariate.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ramchandani, R., Finkelstein, D.M. & Schoenfeld, D.A. Estimation for an accelerated failure time model with intermediate states as auxiliary information. Lifetime Data Anal 26, 1–20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-018-9452-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-018-9452-5