Mathew A, Pandey M, Murthy N S
Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, Kerala, 695 011, India.
Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999 Jun;25(3):321-9. doi: 10.1053/ejso.1998.0650.
Survival analysis in clinical studies is important to assess the effectiveness of a given treatment and to understand the effect of various disease characteristics. A number of methods exist to estimate the survival rate and its standard error. However, one cannot be certain that these methods have been handled appropriately. The widespread use of computers has made it possible to carry out survival analysis without expert guidance, but using inappropriate methods can give rise to erroneous conclusions. The majority of the biomedical journals now recommend that a statistical review of each manuscript should be carried out by an experienced bio-statistician, in addition to obtaining expert referees' comments on the article. The problem is compounded in papers from third-world countries where bio-statisticians may not be available in all institutions to guide clinicians as to the selection of proper techniques.
The present paper deals with the various techniques of survival analysis and their interpretation, using a modal data set of malignant upper-aerodigestive tract melanoma patients treated in the Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum since 1982.
The Kaplan-Meier method was found to be the most suitable for survival analysis. The median survival time is a better method of summarizing data than the mean. Rothman's method of estimation of the confidence limit is better than Peto's method as the confidence limit for survival probability tends to go beyond the range of 0-1.0 when calculated by Peto's method, especially when the sample size is small.
The results from the present study suggest that survival analysis should be carried out by the Kaplan-Meier method. The median survival time should be provided wherever possible, rather than relying on mean survival. Confidence limits should be calculated as a measure of variability. A suitable rank test should be used to compare two or more survival curves, rather than a Z-test. Stratified analysis and Cox's model, when stratified analysis fails, can be used to define the impact of prognostic factors on survival.
临床研究中的生存分析对于评估特定治疗的有效性以及理解各种疾病特征的影响至关重要。存在多种估计生存率及其标准误差的方法。然而,无法确定这些方法是否得到了恰当应用。计算机的广泛使用使得在没有专家指导的情况下进行生存分析成为可能,但使用不恰当的方法可能会得出错误结论。现在大多数生物医学期刊建议,除了获得专家审稿人对文章的意见外,每份稿件都应由经验丰富的生物统计学家进行统计审查。在第三世界国家的论文中,这个问题更加复杂,因为并非所有机构都有生物统计学家来指导临床医生选择合适的技术。
本文使用自1982年以来在特里凡得琅地区癌症中心接受治疗的恶性上消化道黑色素瘤患者的典型数据集,探讨生存分析的各种技术及其解读。
发现Kaplan-Meier方法最适合生存分析。中位数生存时间比平均数更适合总结数据。Rothman估计置信区间的方法比Peto方法更好,因为用Peto方法计算生存概率的置信区间时,尤其是样本量较小时,置信区间往往会超出0 - 1.0的范围。
本研究结果表明,生存分析应采用Kaplan-Meier方法。应尽可能提供中位数生存时间,而不是依赖平均生存时间。应计算置信区间以衡量变异性。应使用合适的秩和检验来比较两条或更多条生存曲线,而不是Z检验。当分层分析失败时,可使用分层分析和Cox模型来确定预后因素对生存的影响。