Skip to content
Prev 175151 / 398506 Next

Competing risks Kalbfleisch & Prentice method

Hi Terry,

My "this" was your (a), i.e. the smoothed hazard rate function. 

I apologize if I came across as being rude.  I was only curious to see if you had any scientific/statistical rationale for not including the smoothed hazard option in your "survival" package, which is, by far, the most widely used tool for time-to-event analysis in R.  Therefore, I just felt that having this, fairly useful, capability in "survival" would be nice.  

I have a couple of questions related to your two other points:

point (b):  How would  you estimate the effect of a treatment on the cumulative incidence of primary outcome, adjusted for covariates, using the K&P approach (both point and interval estimation)?

point (c):   I don't quite understand why you find the F&G model completely biologically untenable.  I view it as mathematical trickery to obtain a compact summary of the impact of a covariate on the cumulative incidence.  The F&G model is especially useful in estimating covariate adjusted treatment effect, provided the proportionality assumption on the sub-distribution hazard is reasonable.  The K&P approach does not provide such compactness as you have to model all the cause-specific hazards.  

Best,
Ravi.

____________________________________________________________________

Ravi Varadhan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology
School of Medicine
Johns Hopkins University

Ph. (410) 502-2619
email: rvaradhan at jhmi.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Therneau <therneau at mayo.edu>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:52 am
Subject: RE: Competing risks Kalbfleisch & 	Prentice method
To: er339 at medschl.cam.ac.uk, tuechler at gmx.at, Ravi Varadhan <rvaradhan at jhmi.edu>
Cc: r-help at r-project.org