Communicating and understanding statistical measures when quantifying the between-group difference in competing risks.

Abstract

Competing risks issues are common in clinical trials and epidemiological studies for patients in follow-up who may experience a variety of possible outcomes. Under such competing risks, two hazard-based statistical methods, cause-specific hazard (CSH) and subdistribution hazard (SDH), are frequently used to assess treatment effects among groups. However, the outcomes of the CSH-based and SDH-based methods have a close connection with the proportional hazards (CSH or SDH) assumption and may have an non-intuitive interpretation. Recently, restricted mean time lost (RMTL) has been used as an alternative summary measure for analysing competing risks, due to its clinical interpretability and robustness to the proportional hazards assumption. Considering the above approaches, we summarize the differences between hazard-based and RMTL-based methods from the aspects of practical interpretation, proportional hazards model assumption and the selection of restricted time points, and propose corresponding suggestions for the analysis of between-group differences under competing risks. Moreover, an R package 'cRMTL' and corresponding step-by-step guidance are available to help users for applying these approaches.