Correlation Engine 2.0
Clear Search sequence regions


Sizes of these terms reflect their relevance to your search.

This study explored the prognostic factors and developed a prediction model for Chinese-American (CA) cervical cancer (CC) patients. We compared two alternative models (the restricted mean survival time (RMST) model and the proportional baselines landmark supermodel (PBLS model, producing dynamic prediction)) versus the Cox proportional hazards model in the context of time-varying effects. A total of 713 CA women with CC and available covariates (age at diagnosis, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, lymph node metastasis and radiation) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database were included. We applied the Cox proportional hazards model to analyse the all-cause mortality with the proportional hazards assumption. Additionally, we applied two alternative models to analyse covariates with time-varying effects. The performances of the models were compared using the C-index for discrimination and the shrinkage slope for calibration. Older patients had a worse survival rate than younger patients. Advanced FIGO stage patients showed a relatively poor survival rate and low life expectancy. Lymph node metastasis was an unfavourable prognostic factor in our models. Age at diagnosis, FIGO stage and lymph node metastasis represented time-varying effects from the PBLS model. Additionally, radiation showed no impact on survival in any model. Dynamic prediction presented a better performance for 5-year dynamic death rates than did the Cox proportional hazards model. With the time-varying effects, the RMST model was suggested to explore diagnosis factors, and the PBLS model was recommended to predict a patient's w-year dynamic death rate. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Citation

Lixian Li, Zijing Yang, Yawen Hou, Zheng Chen. Moving beyond the Cox proportional hazards model in survival data analysis: a cervical cancer study. BMJ open. 2020 Jul 19;10(7):e033965

Expand section icon Mesh Tags


PMID: 32690495

View Full Text