Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 6, 2019

Why we should take care of the competing risk bias in survival analysis: A phase II trial on the toxicity profile of radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Annarita Tullio, Alessandro Magli, Eugenia Moretti, Francesca Valent

Summary:

Aim The aim of the present study is to evaluate and quantify the bias of competing risks in an Italian oncologic cohort comparing results from different statistical analysis methods. Background Competing risks are very common in randomized clinical trials and observational studies, in particular oncology and radiotherapy ones, and their inappropriate management causes results distortions widely present in clinical scientific articles. Materials and methods This is a single-institution phase II trial including 41 patients affected by prostate cancer and undergoing radiotherapy (IMRT-SIB) at the University Hospital of Udine. Different outcomes were considered: late toxicities, relapse, death. Death in the absence of relapse or late toxicity was considered as a competing event. Results The Kaplan Meier method, compared to cumulative incidence function method, overestimated the probability of the event of interest (toxicity and biochemical relapse) and of the competing event (death without toxicity/relapse) by 9.36%. The log-rank test, compared to Gray's test, overestimated the probability of the event of interest by 5.26%. The Hazard Ratio's and cause specific hazard's Cox regression are not directly comparable to subdistribution hazard's Fine and Gray's modified Cox regression; nonetheless, the FG model, the best choice for prognostic studies with competing risks, found significant associations not emerging with Cox regression. Conclusions This study confirms that using inappropriate statistical methods produces a 10% overestimation in results, as described in the literature, and highlights the importance of taking into account the competing risks bias.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(6) : 511-519


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2