Cox Regression II
description
Transcript of Cox Regression II
Cox Regression II
Monday “Gut Check” Problem…
Write out the likelihood for the following data, with weight as a time-dependent variable:Time-to-
event (months)
Survival(1=died/0=censored)
Weight at baseline
Weight at 3 months
Weight at 9 months
Weight at 12 months
10 0 140 145 155 .
2 1 240 . . .
4 0 130 130 . .
8 1 200 210 250 .
12 0 150 145 145 140
14 0 180 180 180 175
10 1 180 190 240 .
1 0 230 . . .
3 0 110 110 . .
SAS code for a time-dependent variable…
proc phreg data=example;model time*censor(0) = weight;if time<3 then weight=w0;if time>=3 and time<6 then weight=w3;if time>=6 and time<9 then weight=w6;if time>=9 then weight=w9;run;
Model results Using baseline weight: HR=2.8 Using weight as time-changing
variable: HR=9.3
1. Stratification
Violations of PH assumption can be resolved by:•Adding time*covariate interaction
•Adding other time-dependent version of the covariate
•Stratification
Stratification
•Different stratum are allowed to have different baseline hazard functions.
•Hazard functions do not need to be parallel between different stratum.
•Essentially results in a “weighted” hazard ratio being estimated: weighted over the different strata.
•Useful for “nuisance” confounders (where you do not care to estimate the effect).
•Assumes no interaction between the stratification variable and the main predictors.
Males: 1, 3, 4, 10+, 12, 18 (subjects 1-6) Females: 1, 4, 5, 9+ (subjects 7-10)
Example: stratify on gender
)....)5()5(
)5((
))1()4()4(
)4(()
)4()4()4()4(
)4(()
)3()3()3()3()3(
)3((
))1()1()1()1(
)1(()
)1()1()1()1()1()1(
)1(()(
109
1098
8
6543
3
65432
2
10987
7
654321
1
1
hh
hx
hhh
hx
hhhh
hx
hhhhh
h
hhhh
hx
hhhhhh
hLL
m
iip
β
♂
♀♂ ♂
♀
♀
The PL
....
))1()1()1()1(
)1((
))1()1()1()1()1()1(
)1((
)(
10987
7
654321
1
0000
0
000000
0
1
βxβxβxβx
βx
βxβxβxβxβxβx
βx
β
eeee
e
xeeeee
et
LL
ffff
f
mmmmmm
m
m
iip
)...()()(10987
7
654321
1
1βxβxβxβx
βx
βxβxβxβxβxβx
βx
βeeee
ex
eeeee
eLL
m
iip
♂
♀
Age is a common confounder in Cox Regression, since age is strongly related to death and disease.
You may control for age by adding baseline age as a covariate to the Cox model.
A better strategy for large-scale longitudinal surveys, such as NHANES, is to use age as your time-scale (rather than time-in-study).
You may additionally stratify on birth cohort to control for cohort effects.
2. Using age as the time-scale in Cox Regression
Age as time-scale The risk set becomes everyone who was
at risk at a certain age rather than at a certain event time.
The risk set contains everyone who was still event-free at the age of the person who had the event.
Requires enough people at risk at all ages (such as in a large-scale, longitudinal survey).
The likelihood with age as time
Event times: 3, 5, 7+, 12, 13+ (years-in-study)
Baseline ages: 28, 25, 40, 29, 30 (years)
Age at event or censoring: 31, 30, 47+, 41, 43+
))41()41()41(
)41(()
)31()31()31(
)31((
))30()30()30()30(
)30(()(
543
4
541
1
5421
2
1
hhh
hx
hhh
h
xhhhh
hLL
m
iip
β
3. Residuals Residuals are used to investigate
the lack of fit of a model to a given subject.
For Cox regression, there’s no easy analog to the usual “observed minus predicted” residual of linear regression
Martingale residual ci (1 if event, 0 if censored) minus the estimated
cumulative hazard to ti (as a function of fitted model) for individual i:
ci-H(ti,Xi,ßi) E.g., for a subject who was censored at 2 months, and whose predicted
cumulative hazard to 2 months was 20% Martingale=0-.20 = -.20
E.g., for a subject who had an event at 13 months, and whose predicted cumulative hazard to 13 months was 50%:
Martingale=1-.50 = +.50
Gives excess failures. Martingale residuals are not symmetrically
distributed, even when the fitted model is correctly, so transform to deviance residuals...
Deviance Residuals
The deviance residual is a normalized transform of the martingale residual. These residuals are much more symmetrically distributed about zero.
Observations with large deviance residuals are poorly predicted by the model.
Deviance Residuals Behave like residuals from ordinary
linear regression Should be symmetrically distributed
around 0 and have standard deviation of 1.0.
Negative for observations with longer than expected observed survival times.
Plot deviance residuals against covariates to look for unusual patterns.
Deviance Residuals In SAS, option on the output
statement:Output out=outdata resdev=Varname
**Cannot get diagnostics in SAS if time-dependent covariate in the model
Example: uis data
Out of 628 observations, a few in the range of 3-SD is not unexpected
Pattern looks fairly symmetric around 0.
Example: uis data
What do you think this cluster represents?
Example: censored only
Example: had event only
Schoenfeld residuals Schoenfeld (1982) proposed the first set
of residuals for use with Cox regression packages Schoenfeld D. Residuals for the proportional
hazards regresssion model. Biometrika, 1982, 69(1):239-241.
Instead of a single residual for each individual, there is a separate residual for each individual for each covariate
Note: Schoenfeld residuals are not defined for censored individuals.
Schoenfeld residuals The Schoenfeld residual is defined as the
covariate value for the individual that failed minus its expected value. (Yields residuals for each individual who failed, for each covariate).
Expected value of the covariate at time ti = a weighted-average of the covariate, weighted by the likelihood of failure for each individual in the risk set at ti.
)(
1
residualitRj
ijjkik pxx
person i for the nowevent ofy probabilit
(age)years 56.,.e
th
setrisk
1
jp
pgj
ij
The person who died was 56; based on the fitted model, how likely is it that the person who died was 56 rather than older?
Example 5 people left in our risk set at
event time=7 months: Female 55-year old smoker Male 45-year old non-smoker Female 67-year old smoker Male 58-year old smoker Male 70-year old non-smoker
The 55-year old female smoker is the one who has the event…
ExampleBased on our model, we can calculate a
predicted probability of death by time 7 for each person (call it “p-hat”):
Female 55-year old smoker: p-hat=.10 Male 45-year old non-smoker : p-hat=.05 Female 67-year old smoker : p-hat=.30 Male 58-year old smoker : p-hat=.20 Male 70-year old non-smoker : p-hat=.30
Thus, the expected value for the AGE of the person who failed is:
55(.10) + 45 (.05) + 67(.30) + 58 (.20) + 70 (.30)= 60And, the Schoenfeld residual is: 55-60 = -5
ExampleBased on our model, we can calculate a
predicted probability of death by time 7 for each person (call it “p-hat”):
Female 55-year old smoker: p-hat=.10 Male 45-year old non-smoker : p-hat=.05 Female 67-year old smoker : p-hat=.30 Male 58-year old smoker : p-hat=.20 Male 70-year old non-smoker : p-hat=.30
The expected value for the GENDER of the person who failed is:
0(.10) + 1(.05) + 0(.30) + 1 (.20) + 1 (.30)= .55And, the Schoenfeld residual is: 0-.55 = -.55
Schoenfeld residuals Since the Schoenfeld residuals are, in
principle, independent of time, a plot that shows a non-random pattern against time is evidence of violation of the PH assumption. Plot Schoenfeld residuals against time to
evaluate PH assumption Regress Schoenfeld residuals against time
to test for independence between residuals and time.
Example: no pattern with time
Example: violation of PH
Schoenfeld residualsIn SAS: option on the output statement:Output out=outdata ressch= Covariate1
Covariate2 Covariate3
Summary of the many ways to evaluate PH assumption…
1. Examine log(-log(S(t)) plotsPH assumption is supported by parallel lines and refuted by lines that cross or
nearly crossMust use categorical predictors or categories of a continuous predictor
2. Include interaction with time in the modelPH assumption is supported by non-significant interaction coefficient and refuted by
significant interaction coefficientRetaining the interaction term in the model corrects for the violation of PHDon’t complicate your model in this way unless it’s absolutely necessary!
3. Plot Schoenfeld residualsPH assumption is supported by a random pattern with time and refuted by a non-
random pattern
4. Regress Schoenfeld residuals against time to test for independence between residuals and time.
PH assumption is supported by a non-significant relationship between residuals and time, and refuted by a significant relationship
Death (presumably) can only happen once, but many outcomes could happen twice… Fractures Heart attacks PregnancyEtc…
4. Repeated events
Strategy 1: run a second Cox regression (among those who had a first event) starting with first event time as the origin
Repeat for third, fourth, fifth, events, etc. Problems: increasingly smaller and
smaller sample sizes.
Repeated events: 1
Treat each interval as a distinct observation, such that someone who had 3 events, for example, gives 3 observations to the dataset Major problem: dependence between
the same individual
Repeated events: Strategy 2
Stratify by individual (“fixed effects partial likelihood”)
In PROC PHREG: strata id; Problems: does not work well with RCT data requires that most individuals have at least 2
events Can only estimate coefficients for those
covariates that vary across successive spells for each individual; this excludes constant personal characteristics such as age, education, gender, ethnicity, genotype
Strategy 3
5. Competing Risks
BMT: Related vs. Unrelated Donor
SAS Output
37
Patients with related donors survive longer.
Related/Unrelated Donor is significant.
Can you say definitively to a patient: If you find a related donor, you will have
longer survival time. What variables could be confounders?
38
Survival Analysis categorizes subjects
1 Event of interest was observed2 Censored3 Competing risk was observed
39
Event of Interest Competing Risk
Death from the disease Death from other causes
Relapse Non-relapse mortality
Relapse Treatment complications
Local progression Metastasis
Competing Risk
40
an event that either precludes the event of interest or alters its probability
BMT Example
41
Interested in Time to Relapse Competing Risks (preclude or alter
probability of relapse) Non-relapse mortality Graft-vs-host disease (GVHD)
Who failed from the event of interest?
1 Event of interest was observed2 Censored3 Competing risk was observed
YesMaybeNo
42
Common Pitfall: treating competing risks as censoring Treats nos as maybes Puts them partially in the numerator of occurrence
when they shouldn’t be there Thus overestimates risk (underestimates S)
What to do instead
KM estimate of event free survival (EFS)
Cumulative Incidence Analysis
43
Event-Free Survival
44
In cancer, often Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Treats competing risks as events Can use KM For each subject, the first event to occur “Survival” implies death is considered an event BMT: first of relapse, GVHD or death Is this of interest? May not be, e.g., Local progression and
metastasis
Cumulative Incidence Analysis
45
Separates competing risks from event of interest
If no competing risks, equivalent to KM Estimates occurrence probability: F(t) =
1 – S(t) Each event goes into one bin (event
type)
BMT CumulativeIncidence Curves
DeathRelapse
GVHD
6. Considerations when analyzing data from an RCT…
Intention-to-Treat Analysis
Intention-to-treat analysis: compare outcomes according to the groups to which subjects were initially assigned, regardless of which intervention they actually received.
Evaluates treatment effectiveness rather than treatment efficacy
Why intention to treat? Non-intention-to-treat analyses lose the
benefits of randomization, as the groups may no longer be balanced with regards to factors that influence the outcome.
Intention-to-treat analysis simulates “real life,” where patients often don’t adhere perfectly to treatment or may discontinue treatment altogether.
Drop-ins and Drop-outs: example, WHI
Both women on placebo and women on active treatment discontinued study
medications.
Women on placebo “dropped in” to treatment because their regular doctors put
them on hormones (dogma= “hormones are good”).
Women on treatment “dropped in” to treatment because their doctors took them off study drugs and put them on hormones to
insure they were on hormones and not placebo.
Effect of Intention to treat on the statistical analysis Intention-to-treat analyses tend to
underestimate treatment effects; increased variability due to switching “waters down” results.
ExampleTake the following hypothetical RCT:Treated subjects have a 25% chance of dying during the 2-
year study vs. placebo subjects have a 50% chance of dying.
TRUE RR= 25%/50% = .50 (treated have 50% less chance of dying)
You do a 2-yr RCT of 100 treated and 100 placebo subjects. If nobody switched, you would see about 25 deaths in the
treated group and about 50 deaths in the placebo group (give or take a few due to random chance).
Observed RR .50
Example, continuedBUT, if early in the study, 25 treated subjects
switch to placebo and 25 placebo subjects switch to treatment.
You would see about 25*.25 + 75*.50 = 43-44 deaths in the placebo group
And about25*.50 + 75*.25 = 31 deaths in the treated group
Observed RR = 31/44 .70Diluted effect!
7. Example analysis: stress fracture study
• Women runners may have reduced levels of estrogen, which puts them at risk of bone loss and stress fractures
• This was a randomized trial of hormones (oral contraceptives) to prevent stress fractures in women runners
• Two groups: treatment and control (no placebo)
Baseline Description and Comparability of Groups
Baseline descriptors are summarized as:• means and standard deviations for continuous
variables • frequencies and percentages for categorical variables
How good was the randomization?; i.e., Are the groups indeed balanced with regards to variables known to be prognostically related to the outcome?
For cohort study, what factors are related to exposure, and thus might be confounders?
Who is in the population?
Age (yrs) 21.9 22.4Stress fracture (%) 40.0 39.1Menses in past year 9.5 9.4No. of lifetime menses 67.4 68.9Oligo/amenorrhea (%) 35.8 30.0Amenorrhea (%) 6.2 11.4Oligomenorrhea (%) 29.6 18.6Elevated EDI score (%) 21.0 30.0Whole body BMD (g/cm2) 1.10 1.11Total hip BMD (g/cm2) .97 .99Spine BMD (g/cm2) .99 .98Total bone mineral content (g) 2146 2179Height (inches) 65.2 65.4Weight (lbs) 128.0 128.7BMI (kg/ m2) 21.2 21.1Percent body fat 23.3 22.7Calcium per day (mg) 1412 1401
control treatment
Stress fracture studyBaseline characteristics by randomization assignment
Summary of events Might be presented as overall
incidence rates. If events are heterogeneous (as
with stress fractures), tabulate results.
Stress Fracture 1
Diagnostic test
Stress fracture 2
Study Area
right tibial bone
right tibial bone
right tibial bone
right tibial bone
right tibial bone
right tibial bone
left tibial bone
left tibial bone
left tibial bone
left tibial bone
right foot
right foot
left third metatarsal
right 4th metatarsal
left cuboid
navicular bone
upper right femur
right femoral neck
18
bone scan
x-ray
bone scan
bone scan
bone scan
bone scan
bone scan
bone scan
bone scan
bone scan
bone scan
x-ray
x-ray
x-ray
MRI
bone scan
MRI
MRI
right tibial bone
right tibial bone
right femur
left foot
4
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Stanford
Michigan
Boston
Michigan
Los Angeles
Michigan
Los Angeles
New York
Boston
Stanford
Stanford
Stanford
Los Angeles
Stanford
Evaluation of primary hypothesis Intention-to-treat analysis for RCT Primary exposure-event hypothesis
for cohort study, adjusted for confounding
Treatment (n=52)6 fractures
Control (n=70)12 fractures
Corresponding Kaplan-Meier curve
Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
Randomized to treatment .82 (0.30, 2.27)
Corresponding HR
Secondary analyses For RCT: any non-intention to treat
analyses For RCT and cohort: evaluate other
predictors; effect modification; subgroups
Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
Randomized to treatment .82 (0.30, 2.27)Randomized to treatment, on-protocol only (n=82) .63 (0.21, 1.92)Actually took OCs at least 1-month .41 (0.15,1.08)
Per month on OCs .92 (0.85, 0.98)Time-dependent treatment variable, when on treatment .50 (0.18,1.40)
**All analyses are stratified on site and menstrual status at baseline (amenorrheic, oligomenorrheic, or eumenorrheic), and adjusted for
age and spine Z-score at baseline using Cox Regression.
Hazard ratios for treatment variables
<1800 g (n=15)
1800-2199 g (n=55)
≥2200 g (n=52)
Kaplan-Meier estimates of stress fracture-free survivorship by BMC at baseline
<800 mg/day (n=22)
800-1499 mg/day (n=63)
1500+mg/day (n=36)
Kaplan-Meier estimates of stress fracture-free survivorship by levels of daily calcium intake at baseline
Previous fracture (n=39)
No previous fracture(n=83)
Kaplan-Meier estimates of stress fracture-free survivorship by previous stress fracture
Lowest quartile of lean mass
Highest quartile of lean mass
Middle two quartiles
Risk Factors
Hazard Ratio (95% CI) History of menstrual irregularity prior to baseline 2.91 (0.81,10.43)BMC<1800g 3.70 (1.31, 10.46)
Low calcium (<800 mg/d) 3.60 (1.12,11.59)
Stress fracture prior to baseline 5.45 (1.48,20.08)Fat mass (per kg) 1.05 (0.91, 1.21)
**All analyses are stratified on site and menstrual status at baseline, and adjusted for age and spine Z-score at baseline using Cox
Regression.
Other protective factors
Hazard Ratio (95% CI) Spine BMD (per 1-standard deviation increase) .54 (0.30, 0.96)Every 100-mg/d calcium (continuous) .90 (0.81, 0.99)
Lean mass (per kg), time-dependent .91 (0.81, 1.02)Change in lean mass (per kg) .83 (0.56, 1.24)Menarche (per 1-year older) .55 (0.34,0.90)
**All analyses are stratified on site and menstrual status at baseline, and adjusted for age and spine Z-score at baseline (except spine Z
score) using Cox Regression.
ReferencesPaul Allison. Survival Analysis Using SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC:
2003.