Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Benefits and limitations of Kaplan–Meier calculations of survival chance in cancer surgery

  • New Surgical Horizons
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aim

Especially in malign diseases, the therapeutic decision depends on the prognosis for the individual patient. A prognosis is a prediction of the future course of disease following its onset. Graphical representation of such statistical results—such as the well-known Kaplan–Meier curve—is often used to assist readers of a paper in the interpretation. However, mistakes and distortions frequently arise in the display and interpretation of survival plots. This review aims to highlight such pitfalls and provide recommendations for future practice.

Methods

Special topics are discussed: the criteria for the presentation of the survival curve, the problem of missing values, estimation of the prognosis in the presence of competing risks, comparison of treatment effects and analysis of survival by tumour-response category.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG, De Stavola BL, Love SB, Stepniewska KA (1995) Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer 72:511–518

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonenkamp JJ, Hermans J, Sasako M, van de Velde CJ (1999) Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. Dutch Gastric Cancer Group. N Engl J Med 340:908–914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hartgrink HH, van de Velde CJH on behalf of the Dutch Gastric Cancer Group (2003) Final results of the Dutch D1 versus D2 gastric cancer trial. In: Santoro E, Garofalo A (eds) Proceedings of the 5th World Gastric Cancer Congress. International Gastric Cancer Congress (ROM)

  5. Bollschweiler E, Schneider PM, Monig SP, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Mansmann U, Lehmacher W, Schlag PM, Merkel S, Hohenberger W, Izbicki JR, Hermanek P, Holscher AH (2003) Prognostic relevance of biological and molecular markers in oncology. Criteria for planning and interpreting studies. Chirurg 74:139–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Altman DG (2002) Survival plots of time-to-event outcomes in clinical trials: good practice and pitfalls. Lancet 359:1686–1689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brookmeyer R, Crowley J (1982) A confidence interval for the median survival time. Biometrics 38:29–41

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shuster JJ (1991) Median follow-up in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 9:191–192

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (1980) The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New York

  10. Clark TG, Altman DG, De Stavola BL (2002) Quantification of the completeness of follow-up. Lancet 359:1309–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cantor AB, Shuster JJ (1992) Parametric versus non-parametric methods for estimating cure rates based on censored survival data. Stat Med 11:931–937

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andersen J, Goetghebeur E, Ryan L (1996) Missing cause of death information in the analysis of survival data. Stat Med 15:2191–2201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Flehinger BJ, Reiser B, Yashchin E (2002) Parametric modelling for survival with competing risks and masked failure causes. Lifetime Data Anal 8:177–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brookmeyer R, Curriero FC (2002) Survival curve estimation with partial non-random exposure. Stat Med 21:2671–2683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koscielny S, Thames HD (2001) Biased methods for estimating local and distant failure rates in breast carcinoma and a "commonsense" approach. Cancer 92:2220–2227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gelman R, Gelber R, Henderson IC, Coleman CN, Harris JR (1990) Improved methodology for analyzing local and distant recurrence. J Clin Oncol 8:548–555

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson JR (2001) Commonly misused approaches in the analysis of cancer clinical trials. In: Crowley J (ed) Handbook of statistics in clinical oncology

  18. Weiss GB, Bunce H, Hokanson JA (1983) Comparing survival of responders and nonresponders after treatment: a potential source of confusion in interpreting cancer clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 4:43–52

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD (1983) Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1:710–719

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD, Gelman RS (1985) Analysis and interpretation of the comparison of survival by treatment outcome variables in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1139–1146

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Simon R, Wittes RE (1985) Methodologic guidelines for reports of clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1–3

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Simon R, Makuch RW (1984) A non-parametric graphical representation of the relationship between survival and the occurrence of an event: application to responder versus non-responder bias. Stat Med 3:35–44

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Visceral and Vascular Surgery, University of Cologne, Joseph Stelzmann Strasse 9, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    Elfriede Bollschweiler

Authors
  1. Elfriede Bollschweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elfriede Bollschweiler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bollschweiler, E. Benefits and limitations of Kaplan–Meier calculations of survival chance in cancer surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 388, 239–244 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-003-0410-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-003-0410-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation