Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1981; 20(02): 110-115
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1635296
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Power and Sample Size Determination in Survival Time Studies with Special Regard to the Censoring Mechanism[*]

POWER- UND STICHPROBENKALKULATION IN ÜBERLEBENSZEITSTUDIEN MIT BESONDERER BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG DER ZENSIERUNG
M. Schumacher
1   From the Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation, Statistik und Datenverarbeitung der Universität Heidelberg, and Sonderforschungsbereich 123 “Stochastische Mathematische Modelle” der Universität Heidelberg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

When calculating the power and sample size in survival time studies for the comparison of two treatments censoring has to be taken into account.

In most medical applications only vague information about the shape of the underlying distributions is available. Thus, a distribution-free procedure based on the McNemar test is proposed and compared with other methods.

Power- und Stichprobenkalkulationen in Uberlebenszeitstudien zum Vergleich zweier Behandlungen müssen den Einfluß, den der Zensierungsmechanismus ausübt, berücksichtigen.

Bei den meisten Anwendungen im Bereich der Medizin hat man oft nur eine sehr grobe Vorstellung über die Form der zugrundeliegenden Verteilungen. Deshalb wird ein Verfahren vorgeschlagen, das auf dem verteilungsfreien McNemar-Test beruht, und mit anderen Methoden verglichen.

Key-Words:

Survival Time Studies - Random Censorship - Power of 2-Sample Tests - Sample Size Determination - McNemar Test

Schlüssel-Wörter:

Uberlebenszeitstudien - Zufällige Zensierung - Power von Zwei-Stichprobentests - Stichprobenumfänge - McNemar-Test

* This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft


 

  • References

  • 1 Armitage P. The Comparison of Survival Curves. J. roy. statist. Soc. A 1959; 122: 279-292.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Armitage P. Sequential Medical Trials. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Black-well; 1975
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bernstein D, Lagakos S. W. Sample Size and Power Determination for Stratified Clinical Trials. J. statist. Comput. Simul 1978; 8: 65-73.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Boag J. W, Haybittle J. L, Fowler J. F, Emery E. W. The Number of Patients Required in a Clinical Trial. Brit. J. Radiol 1971; 44: 122-125.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Breslow N. E. Analysis of Survival Data under the Proportional Hazards Model. Int. statist. Rev 1975; 43: 44-58.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Casagrande J. T, Pike M. C, Smith P. G. An Improved Approximate Formula for Calculating Sample Sizes for Comparing two Binomial Distributions. Biometrics 1978; 34: 483-486.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cochran W. G, Cox G. M. Experimental Designs. 2nd Ed.. New York: Wiley; 1957
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Cox D. R. Regression Models and Life Tables (with Discussion) . J. roy. statist. Soc. B 1972; 34: 187-220.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Fleiss J. L. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: Wiley; 1973
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 George S. L, Desu M. M. Planning the Size and Duration of a Clinical Trial Studying the Time to some Critical Event. J. chron. Dis 1974; 27: 15-24.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Gross A. J, Clark V. A. Survival Distributions: Reliability Applications in the Biomedical Sciences. New York: Wiley; 1975
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Haybittle J. L, Freedman S. Some Comments on the Logrank , Test Statistic in Clinical Trial Applications. Statistician 1979; 28: 199-208.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Holt J. D, Prentice R. L. Survival Analysis in Twin Studies and Matched Pair Experiments. Biometrika 1974; 61: 17-80.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lee E. T, Desu M. M, Gehan E. A. A Monte Carlo Study of the Power of some Two-sample Tests. Biometrika 1975; 62: 425-432.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Lininger L, Gail M. H, Green S. B, Byar D. P. Comparison of four Tests for Equality of Survival Curves in the Presence of Stratification and Censoring. Biometrika 1979; 66: 419-428.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Mcnemar Q. Note on the Sampling Error of the Differences between Correlated Proportions or Percentages. Psychometrika 1947; 12: 153-157.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Miettinen O. S. The Matched Pairs Design in the Case of All-or-none Responses. Biometrics 1968; 24: 339-352.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Peto R, Peto J. Asymptotically Efficient Rank Invariant Test Procedures (with Discussion) . J. roy. statist. Soc. A 1972; 135: 185-207.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Peto R, Pike M. C, Armitage P, Breslow N. E, Cox D. R, Howard S. V, Mantel N, Mcpherson K, Peto J, Smith P. G. Design and Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Requiring Prolonged Observation of each Patient. I. Introduction and Design. Brit. J. Cancer 1976; 34: 585-612.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Peto R. Design and Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Lecture Given at the 2nd Session on the Planning of Cancer Therapy Studies, Ulm 1979
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Schoenfeld D. The Asymptotic Properties of Nonparametric Tests for the Censored Two-sample Problem. Techn. Report. Sidney Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston 1980
    Search in Google Scholar