Advertisement

Inference of Transition Probabilities in Multi-State Models Using Adaptive Inverse Probability Censoring Weighting Technique

  • Ying ZhangEmail author
  • Mei-Jie Zhang
Chapter
  • 27 Downloads
Part of the Emerging Topics in Statistics and Biostatistics book series (ETSB)

Abstract

Inverse probability censoring weighting (IPCW) technique is often used to adjust for right censoring or recover information for censored individuals in survival analysis and in multi-state modeling. A simple IPCW (SIPCW) technique which does not consider the intermediate states, has been proposed for analyzing multi-state data. However, our simulation studies show that the SIPCW technique may lead to biased estimates when being applied in complex multi-state models. We thereby propose a model-specific, state-dependent adaptive IPCW (AIPCW) technique for estimating transition probabilities in multi-state models. Intensive simulation results verified that the proposed AIPCW technique improves the accuracy of transition probability estimates compared to the SIPCW technique and leads to asymptotic unbiased estimates. We applied the proposed technique to a real-world hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) data to assess the acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) effects on disease relapse rates and mortality rates.

Keywords

Inverse probability censoring weighting IPCW Probability Stem cells Stem cell transplant Graft-versus-host disease AIPCW 

References

  1. 1.
    Aalen, O. (1978). Nonparametric inference for a family of counting processes. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 701–726.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aalen, O., & Johansen, S. (1978). An empirical transition matrix for non-homogeneous Markov chains based on censored observations. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 5, 141–150.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen, P. K., Borgan, O., Gill, R. D., & Keiding, N. (1993). Statistical models based on counting processes. New York: NY Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bie, O., Borgan, Ø., & Liestøl, K. (1987). Confidence intervals and confidence bands for the cumulative hazard rate function and their small sample properties. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 14, 221–233.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borgan, Ø., & Liestøl, K. (1990). A note on confidence intervals and bands for the survival function based on transformations. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 17, 35–41.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Datta, S., & Satten, G. A. (2001). Validity of the Aalen–Johansen estimators of stage occupation probabilities and Nelson–Aalen estimators of integrated transition hazards for non-Markov models. Statistics & Probability Letters, 55(4), 403–411.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Datta, S., & Satten, G. A. (2002). Estimation of integrated transition hazards and stage occupation probabilities for non-Markov system under stage dependent censoring. Biometrics, 58, 792–802.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999). A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 496–509.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    He, P., Eriksson, F., Scheike, T. H., & Zhang, M.-J. (2015). A proportional hazards regression model for the subdistribution with covariates-adjusted censoring weight for competing risks data. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 43, 103–122.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klein, J. P., Szydlo, R. M., Craddock, C., & Goldman, J. M. (2000). Estimation of current leukaemia-free survival following donor lymphocyte infusion therapy for patients with leukaemia who relapse after allografting: Application of a multistate model. Statistics in Medicine, 19(21), 3005–3016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luger, S. M., Ringdén, O., Zhang, M.-J., Pérez, W. S., Bishop, M. R., Bornhauser, M., et al. (2012). Similar outcomes using myeloablative vs reduced-intensity allogeneic transplant preparative regimens for AML or MDS. Bone Marrow Transplantation, 47(2), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nelson, W. (1969). Hazard plotting for incomplete failure data. Journal of Quality Technology, 1(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nelson, W. (1972). Theory and applications of hazard plotting for censored failure data. Technometrics, 14(4), 945–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robins, J. M., & Rotnitzky, A. (1992). Recovery of information and adjustment for dependent censoring using surrogate markers. In AIDS epidemiology (pp. 297–331). Boston: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheike, T., & Zhang, M. J. (2007). Direct modelling of regression effects for transition probabilities in multistate models. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 34(1), 17–32.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheike, T. H., Zhang, M. J., & Gerds, T. A. (2008). Predicting cumulative incidence probability by direct binomial regression. Biometrika, 95(1), 205–220.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang, X., Zhang, M. J., & Fine, J. P. (2009). A mass redistribution algorithm for right-censored and left-truncated time to event data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 139(9), 3329–3339.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Merck & Co.KenilworthUSA
  2. 2.Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations