Nonparametric inference for assessing treatment efficacy in randomized clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome and all-or-none compliance

Biometrika

Volumn 99, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 393-404

  Elashoff, Robert M ^a   Li, Gang ^a   Zhou, Ying ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological efficacy; Censoring; Counting process; Martingale; Noncompliance; Survival probability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861608133     PISSN: 00063444     EISSN: 14643510     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biomet/ass004     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. ALBERT, J. M. (2002). Estimating efficacy in clinical trials with clustered binary responses. Statist. Med. 21, 649-61.
2. ANDERSEN, P. K., BORGAN, Ø., GILL, R. D. & KEIDING, N. (1993). Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes. New York: Springer.
3. BERGER, R. L. & BOOS, D. D. (1999). Confidence limits for the onset and duration of treatment effect. Biomet. J. 41, 517-31.
4. CHUNG, K. L. (2001). A Course in Probability Theory, 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press.
5. CUZICK, J., EDWARDS, R. & SEGNAN, N. (1997). Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Statist. Med. 16, 1017-29.
6. CUZICK, J., SASIENI, P.,MYLES, J. & TYRER, J. (2007). Estimating the effect of treatment in a proportional hazards model in the presence of non-compliance and contamination. J. R. Statist. Soc. B 69, 565-88.
7. FRANGAKIS, C. E. & RUBIN, D. B. (1999). Addressing complications of intention-To-Treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-non-compliance and subsequent missing outcomes. Biometrika 86, 365-79.
8. GOETHGEBEUR, E. & MOLENBERGHS, G. (1996). Causal inference in a placebo-controlled clinical trial with binary outcome and ordered compliance. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 91, 928-34.
9. HOLLIS, S. & CAMPBELL, F. (1999). What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. Br. Med. J. 319, 670-4.
10. KAPLAN, E. L. & MEIER, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 53, 457-81.
11. KEMENY, M. M.,ADAK, S.,GRAY, B.,MACDONALD, J. S., SMITH, T., LIPSITZ, S., SIGURDSON, E. R.,O'DWYER, P. J. & BENSON, A. B. (2002). Combined-modality treatment for resectable metastatic colorectal carcinoma to the liver: surgical resection of hepatic metastases in combination with continuous infusion of chemotherapy-An intergroup study. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 1499-505.
12. LACHIN, J. M. (2000). Statistical considerations in the intent-To-Treat principle. Contr. Clin. Trials 21, 167-89.
13. LIN, D. Y. & YING, Z. (2001). Semiparametric and nonparametric regression analysis of longitudinal data. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 96, 103-13.
14. LOEYS, T. & GOETGHEBEUR, E. (2003). A causal proportional hazards estimator for the effect of treatment actually received in a randomized trial with all-or-nothing compliance. Biometrics 59, 100-5.
15. LOEYS, T., GOETGHEBEUR, E. & VABDEBOSCH, A. (2005). Casual proportional hazards models and time-consistent exposure in randomized clinical trials. Lifetime Data Anal. 11, 435-49.
16. MORTON, D. L., THOMPSON, J. F., COCHRAN, A. J., MOZZILLO, N., ELASHOFF, R., ESSNER, R., NIEWEG, O. E., ROSES, D. F., HOEKSTRA, H. J., KARAKOUSIS, C. P., ET AL. (2006). Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation in melanoma. New Engl. J. Med. 355, 1307-17.
17. NEWEY, W. K. & MCFADDEN, D. (1994). Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 4, Ch. 36, pp. 2111-245. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
18. POLLARD, D. (1984). Weak Convergence of Stochastic Processes. New York: Springer.
19. ROBINS, J. M. & TSIATIS, A. A. (1991). Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models. Commun. Statist. A 20, 2609-31.
20. SOMMER, A. & ZEGER, S. L. (1991). On estimating efficacy from clinical trials. Statist. Med. 10, 45-53.
21. ZELEN, M. (1979). A new design for randomized clinical trials. New Engl. J. Med. 300, 1242-5.
22. ZELEN, M. (1990). Randomized consent designs for clinical trials: an update. Statist. Med. 9, 645-56.