The use and abuse of survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves in surgical trials

Abstract

BackgroundSurvival analysis based on Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier curves, initially devised for oncology trials, have frequently been used in other contexts where fundamental statistical assumptions (such as a constant hazard ratio) are not satisfied. This is almost always the case in trials that compare surgery with medical management. MethodsWe review a trial that compared extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery (EC-IC bypass) with medical management (MM) of patients with symptomatic occlusion of the carotid or middle cerebral artery, where it was claimed that surgery was of no benefit. We discuss a hypothetical study and review other neurovascular trials which have also used survival analysis to compare results. ResultsThe trial comparing EC-IC bypass and MM did not satisfy the fundamental proportional hazard assumption necessary for valid analyses. This was also the case for two prior EC-IC bypass trials, as well as for other landmark neurovascular studies, such as the trials comparing endarterectomy with MM for carotid stenoses, or for the trial that compared intervention and MM for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations. While minor deviations may have little effect on large trials, it may be impossible to show the benefits of surgery when trial size is small and deviations large. ConclusionSurvival analyses are inappropriate in RCTs comparing surgery with conservative management, unless survival is calculated after the postoperative period. Alternative ways to compare final clinical outcomes, using for example a fixed follow-up period, should be planned for preventive surgical trials that compare intervention with conservative management.