Nonparametric Trend Tests for Right-Censored Survival Times

  • Sandra Leissen
  • Uwe Ligges
  • Markus Neuhäuser
  • Ludwig A. Hothorn


In clinical dose finding studies or preclinical carcinogenesis experiments survival times may arise in groups associated with ordered doses. Here interest may focus on detecting dose dependent trends in the underlying survival functions of the groups. So if a test is to be applied we are faced with an ordered alternative in the test problem, and therefore a trend test may be preferable. Several trend tests for survival data have already been introduced in the literature, e.g., the logrank test for trend, the one by Gehan [4] and Mantel [12], the one by Magel and Degges [11], and the modified ordered logrank test by Liu et al. [10], where the latter is shown to be a special case of the logrank test for trend. Due to their similarity to single contrast tests it is suspected that these tests are more powerful for certain trends than for others. The idea arises whether multiple contrast tests can lead to a better overall power and a more symmetric power over the alternative space. So based on the tests mentioned above two new multiple contrast tests are constructed. In order to compare the conventional with the new tests a simulation study was carried out. The study shows that the new tests preserve the nominal level satisfactory from a certain sample size but fail to conform the expectations in the power improvements.


Test Problem Survival Function Trend Test Nominal Level Maximum Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bretz, F., Hothorn, L.A.: Statistical Analysis of Monotone or Non-Monotone Dose-Response Data from In Vitro Toxological Assays. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 31, 81–96 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Büning, H., Trenkler, G.: Nichtparametrische Statistische Methoden (2nd ed.).De Gruyter, Berlin (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collett, D.: Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gehan, E.A.: A Generalized Wilcoxon Test for Comparing Arbitrarily Singly-Censored Samples. Biometrika 52, 203–223 (1965)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hettmansperger, T.P., Norton, R.M.: Tests for Patterned Alternatives in k-Sample Problems. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82, 292–299 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hirotsu, C.: The Cumulative Chi-Squares Method and a Studentised Maximal Contrast Method for Testing an Ordered Alternative in a One-Way Analysis of Variance Model. Rep. Stat.: Application Research 26, 12–21 (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hothorn, L.A., Neuhäuser, M., Koch, H.-F.: Analysis of Randomized Dose Finding Studies: Closure Test Modifications Based on Multiple Contrast Tests. Biometrical J. 39, 467–479 (1997)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonckheere, A.R.: A Distribution-Free k-Sample Test Against Ordered Alternatives. Biometrika 41, 133–145 (1954)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leissen, S.: Nichtparametrische Trendtests zur Analyse von rechtszensierten Überlebenszeiten. Diplomarbeit, Fachbereich Statistik, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, P.-Y., Tsai, W.Y., Wolf, M.: Design and Analysis for Survival Data under Order Restrictions with a Modified Logrank Test. Stat. Med. 17, 1469–1479 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magel, R.C., Degges, R.: Tests for Ordered Alternatives with Right Censored Data. Biometrical J. 40, 495–518 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mantel, N.: Ranking Procedures for Abitrarily Restricted Observation. Biometrics 23, 65–78 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mukerjee, H., Robertson, T., Wright, F.T.: Comparison of Several Treatments with a Control using Multiple Contrasts. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82, 902–910 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neuhäuser, M., Hothorn, L.A.: Trend Tests for Dichotomous Endpoints with Application to Carcinogenicity Studies. Drug Inf. J. 31, 463–469 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neuhäuser, M., Hothorn, L.A.: An Analogue of Jonckheere's Trend Test for Parametric and Dichotomous Data. Biometrical J. 40, 11–19 (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neuhäuser, M., Seidel, D., Hothorn, L.A., Urfer, W.: Robust Trend Tests with Application to Toxicology. Environ. and Ecol. Stat. 7, 43–56 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2008), ISBN 3-900051-07-0
  18. 18.
    Terpstra, T.J.: The Asymptotic Normality and Consistency of Kendall's Test Against Trend, when Ties are Present in One Ranking. Indigationes Mathe-maticae 14, 327–333 (1952)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät StatistikTechnische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Fachbereich Mathematik und TechnikRheinAhr-Campus RemagenRemagenGermany
  3. 3.Institut fülr BiostatistikLeibnizUniversit-annoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations