Back

Estimating the new event-free survival

Vilsmeier, J.; Saadati, M.; Miah, K.; Benner, A.; Doehner, H.; Beyersmann, J.

2026-03-26 oncology
10.64898/2026.03.25.26349169 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundIn acute myeloid leukemia studies, event-free survival (EFS) is defined as time until treatment failure, relapse, or death, whichever occurs first. Since 2020 and 2022, respectively, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European LeukemiaNet recommend analysing treatment failures as day-1 events. This data modification can lead to a potentially large drop in the estimated EFS at day 1. If censoring occurs, the Kaplan-Meier estimator obtained from the recoded data underestimates this drop. Our aim is to obtain an unbiased estimate for EFS as basis for further inference. MethodsWe define "event on day 1" as one event type and " event after day 1" as a competing event in the original data and use the Aalen-Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence curve to estimate event-specific transition probabilities, which are combined in one EFS estimate. To analyse effects on day 1 treatment failure and other post-day-1 EFS events separately, a formal link to cure models is established by equating treatment failures with the "cured" proportion in cure model terminology. Additionally, a variance estimator, confidence intervals, confidence bands, and simultaneous testing procedures are derived. ResultsOur new estimation method differs from the Kaplan-Meier estimator in settings in which some treatment failures are censored, as in the interim analysis of the AMLSG 09-09 study. If almost no treatment failures are censored, the two estimation methods do not differ. The cure model and simultaneous testing are able to estimate effects on day 1 treatment failure and other post-day-1 EFS events separately and function independently of whether data is modified. ConclusionsThe Kaplan-Meier estimator evaluated on the recoded data underestimates the drop at day 1 if treatment failures are censored. With sufficient follow-up, this bias disappears, and results coincide with our novel approach.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 3%
12.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.8%
3
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.0%
4
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
5
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
6
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
7
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
8
Blood
67 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
9
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.5%
10
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
11
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
12
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
13
Leukemia
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.7%
15
British Journal of Haematology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
17
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
18
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
19
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
20
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
21
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
22
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
23
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
24
Molecular Oncology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
25
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
26
Molecular Biology Reports
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
27
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
28
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
29
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
30
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%