title: Analysis and design of randomised clinical trials involving competing risks endpoints.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In randomised clinical trials involving time-to-event outcomes, the failures concerned may be events of an entirely different nature and as such define a classical competing risks framework. In designing and analysing clinical trials involving such endpoints, it is important to account for the competing events, and evaluate how each contributes to the overall failure. An appropriate choice of statistical model is important for adequate determination of sample size.
  
  
  METHODS
  We describe how competing events may be summarised in such trials using cumulative incidence functions and Gray's test. The statistical modelling of competing events using proportional cause-specific and subdistribution hazard functions, and the corresponding procedures for sample size estimation are outlined. These are illustrated using data from a randomised clinical trial (SQNP01) of patients with advanced (non-metastatic) nasopharyngeal cancer.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In this trial, treatment has no effect on the competing event of loco-regional recurrence. Thus the effects of treatment on the hazard of distant metastasis were similar via both the cause-specific (unadjusted csHR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.72) and subdistribution (unadjusted subHR 0.43; 95% CI 0.25 - 0.76) hazard analyses, in favour of concurrent chemo-radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjusting for nodal status and tumour size did not alter the results. The results of the logrank test (p = 0.002) comparing the cause-specific hazards and the Gray's test (p = 0.003) comparing the cumulative incidences also led to the same conclusion. However, the subdistribution hazard analysis requires many more subjects than the cause-specific hazard analysis to detect the same magnitude of effect.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The cause-specific hazard analysis is appropriate for analysing competing risks outcomes when treatment has no effect on the cause-specific hazard of the competing event. It requires fewer subjects than the subdistribution hazard analysis for a similar effect size. However, if the main and competing events are influenced in opposing directions by an intervention, a subdistribution hazard analysis may be warranted.
authors: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. ephtbc@nus.edu.sg
authors: Bee-Choo
authors: BC
authors: Tai
authors: Joseph
authors: J
authors: Wee
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Machin
references: Stat Med. 2004 Nov 15;23(21):3263-74
references: 15490425
references: Biostatistics. 2007 Oct;8(4):689-94
references: 17151088
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(2):261-70
references: 1587745
references: Stat Med. 2007 Mar 30;26(7):1649-51
references: 17054104
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Mar 15;79(4):1139-46
references: 20472355
references: J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 20;26(24):4027-34
references: 18711194
references: Contemp Clin Trials. 2005 Jun;26(3):386-96
references: 15911472
references: Stat Med. 2001 Mar 15;20(5):661-84
references: 11241570
references: Heart. 2003 Jan;89(1):42-8
references: 12482789
references: Stat Med. 2007 Feb 28;26(5):965-74
references: 16755533
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Apr;76(5):1493-9
references: 19577860
references: Stat Med. 2005 Jun 15;24(11):1703-12
references: 15706579
references: Biometrics. 1983 Jun;39(2):499-503
references: 6354290
references: Stat Med. 2008 Mar 15;27(6):922-36
references: 17551931
references: Stat Med. 2007 Dec 30;26(30):5370-80
references: 17955563
references: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2006 Jan;12(1 Suppl 1):107-12
references: 16399594
references: Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Jan 15;13(2 Pt 1):559-65
references: 17255278
references: Stat Med. 2007 Dec 30;26(30):5360-9
references: 17634974
references: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 20;23(27):6730-8
references: 16170180