Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Jan 23;10(1):e0116774.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116774. eCollection 2015.

Statistical inference methods for two crossing survival curves: a comparison of methods

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Statistical inference methods for two crossing survival curves: a comparison of methods

Huimin Li et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

A common problem that is encountered in medical applications is the overall homogeneity of survival distributions when two survival curves cross each other. A survey demonstrated that under this condition, which was an obvious violation of the assumption of proportional hazard rates, the log-rank test was still used in 70% of studies. Several statistical methods have been proposed to solve this problem. However, in many applications, it is difficult to specify the types of survival differences and choose an appropriate method prior to analysis. Thus, we conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to investigate the power and type I error rate of these procedures under various patterns of crossing survival curves with different censoring rates and distribution parameters. Our objective was to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of tests in different situations and for various censoring rates and to recommend an appropriate test that will not fail for a wide range of applications. Simulation studies demonstrated that adaptive Neyman's smooth tests and the two-stage procedure offer higher power and greater stability than other methods when the survival distributions cross at early, middle or late times. Even for proportional hazards, both methods maintain acceptable power compared with the log-rank test. In terms of the type I error rate, Renyi and Cramér-von Mises tests are relatively conservative, whereas the statistics of the Lin-Xu test exhibit apparent inflation as the censoring rate increases. Other tests produce results close to the nominal 0.05 level. In conclusion, adaptive Neyman's smooth tests and the two-stage procedure are found to be the most stable and feasible approaches for a variety of situations and censoring rates. Therefore, they are applicable to a wider spectrum of alternatives compared with other tests.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Survival configurations for simulation of power.
* λ i denotes the hazard function of S i(t), a piecewise exponential distribution. † W(η, θ) denotes a Weibull distribution having S(t) = exp{(-t / θ)η}, where η>0 is the shape parameter, θ>0 is the scale parameter.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Estimated survival functions for Example 1, 2, and 3.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lin X, Xu Q (2010) A new method for the comparison of survival distributions. Pharm Stat 9(1): 67–76. 10.1002/pst.376 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Qiu P, Sheng J (2008) A two-stage procedure for comparing hazard rate functions. J R Statist Soc B 70(1): 191–208.
    1. Liu K, Qiu P, Sheng J (2007) Comparing two crossing hazard rates by Cox proportional hazards modelling. Stat Med 26(2): 375–391. 10.1002/sim.2544 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lin X, Wang H (2004) A new testing approach for comparing the overall homogeneity of survival curves. Biometrical J 46(5): 489–496. 10.1002/bimj.200310053 - DOI
    1. Le CT (2003) Statistical methods for the comparison of crossing survival curves. In: Balakrishnan N and Rao CR (eds) Handbook of Statistics, Vol.23 Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.277–289.

Publication types

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81202288). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

LinkOut - more resources