Lifetime Data Analysis

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 473–495 | Cite as

A competing risks model for correlated data based on the subdistribution hazard

  • Stephanie N. Dixon
  • Gerarda A. Darlington
  • Anthony F. Desmond


Family-based follow-up study designs are important in epidemiology as they enable investigations of disease aggregation within families. Such studies are subject to methodological complications since data may include multiple endpoints as well as intra-family correlation. The methods herein are developed for the analysis of age of onset with multiple disease types for family-based follow-up studies. The proposed model expresses the marginalized frailty model in terms of the subdistribution hazards (SDH). As with Pipper and Martinussen’s (Scand J Stat 30:509–521, 2003) model, the proposed multivariate SDH model yields marginal interpretations of the regression coefficients while allowing the correlation structure to be specified by a frailty term. Further, the proposed model allows for a direct investigation of the covariate effects on the cumulative incidence function since the SDH is modeled rather than the cause specific hazard. A simulation study suggests that the proposed model generally offers improved performance in terms of bias and efficiency when a sufficient number of events is observed. The proposed model also offers type I error rates close to nominal. The method is applied to a family-based study of breast cancer when death in absence of breast cancer is considered a competing risk.


Familial aggregation Competing risks Cumulative incidence function Semi-parametric 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M (2005) Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Stat Med 24: 1715–1723CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen B, Kramer J, Greene M, Rosenberg P (2008) Competing risks analysis of correlated failure time data. Biometrics 64: 172–179CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng Y, Fine J (2008) Nonparametric estimation of cause-specific cross hazard ratio with bivariate competing risks data. Biometrika 95: 233–240CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng Y, Fine J, Kosorok M (2007) Nonparametric association analysis of bivariate competing-risks data. J Am Stat Assoc 102: 1407–1415CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Clayton D (1978) A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence. Biometrika 65: 141–151CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Clayton D, Cuzick (1985) Multivariate generalizations of the proportional hazards model. J R Stat Soc Ser A 148: 82–117CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Fine J, Gray R (1999) A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94: 486–509CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Glidden D (2000) A two-stage estimator of the dependence parameter for the Clayton-Oakes model. Lifetime Data Anal 6: 141–156CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Glidden D, Self S (1999) Semiparametric likelihood estimation in the Clayton-Oakes failure time model. Scand J Stat 26: 363–372CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Glidden D, Vittinghoff E (2004) Modeling clustered survival data from multicenter clinical trials. Stat Med 23: 369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray R (1988) A class of k-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat 16: 1141–1154CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Hougaard P (2000) Analysis of multivariate survival data. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsu L, Gorfine M, Malone K (2007) On robustness of marginal regression coefficient estimates and hazard functions in multivariate survival analysis of family data when the frailty distribution is mis-specified. Stat Med 26: 4657–4678CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalbfleisch J, Prentice R (2002) The statistical analysis of failure time data. 2. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katsahian S, Resche-Rigon M, Chevret S, Porcher R (2006) Analysing multicentre competing risks data with a mixed proportional hazards model for the subdistribution. Stat Med 25: 4267–4278CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein J (1992) Semiparametric estimation of random effects using the Cox model based on the EM algorithm. Biometrics 48: 795–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kramer J, Velazquez I, Chen B, Rosenberg P, Struewing J, Green M (2005) Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer penetrance during prospective long-term follow-up of BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 23: 8629–8635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leemis L (1987) Variate generation for accelerated life and proportional hazards models. Oper Res 35: 892–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leemis L, Shih LH, Reynertson K (1990) Variate generation for accelerated life and proportional hazards models with time dependent covariates. Stat Probab Lett 10: 335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin D (2007) On the Breslow estimator. Lifetime Data Anal 13: 471–480CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen G, Gill R, Andersen P, Sørensen T (1992) A counting process approach to maximum likelihood estimation in frailty models. Scand J Stat 18: 25–43Google Scholar
  22. Oakes D (1989) Bivariate survival models induced by frailties. J Am Stat Assoc 84: 487–493CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Pepe M, Mori M (1993) Kaplan–Meier, marginal or conditional probability curves in summarizing competing risks failure time data. Stat Med 12: 737–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pintilie M (2006) Competing risks: a practical perspective. Wiley, EnglandMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Pipper C, Martinussen T (2003) A likelihood based estimating equation for the Clayton-Oakes model with marginal proportional hazards. Scand J Stat 30: 509–521CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team: (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  27. Rutter J, Smith A, Dávilla M, Sigurdson A, Giusti R, Pinede M, Doody M, Tucker M, Greene M, Zhang J, Struewing J (2005) Mutational analysis of the BRCA1-interacting genes ZNF350/ZBRK1 and BRIP1/BACH1 among BRCA1 and BRCA2-negative probands from breast-ovarian cancer families and among early-onset breast cancer cases and reference individuals. Hum Mutat 22: 121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shih J, Louis T (1995) Assessing gamma frailty models for clustered failure time data. Lifetime Data Anal 1: 205–220CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Struewing J, Brody L, Erdos M, Kase R, Giambarresi T, Smith S, Collins F, Tucker M (1995) Detection of eight BRCA1 mutations in 10 breast/ovarian cancer families, including 1 family with male breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet 57: 1–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie N. Dixon
    • 1
  • Gerarda A. Darlington
    • 2
  • Anthony F. Desmond
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & DentistryThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations