Comparing Strategies for Modeling Competing Risks in Discrete-Event Simulations: A Simulation Study and Illustration in Colorectal Cancer

Koen Degeling, Hendrik Koffijberg, Mira D. Franken, Miriam Koopman, Maarten J. IJzerman (Corresponding Author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

17 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background. Different strategies toward implementing competing risks in discrete-event simulation (DES) models are available. This study aims to provide recommendations regarding modeling approaches that can be defined based on these strategies by performing a quantitative comparison of alternative modeling approaches. Methods. Four modeling approaches were defined: 1) event-specific distribution (ESD), 2) event-specific probability and distribution (ESPD), 3) unimodal joint distribution and regression model (UDR), and 4) multimodal joint distribution and regression model (MDR). Each modeling approach was applied to uncensored individual patient data in a simulation study and a case study in colorectal cancer. Their performance was assessed in terms of relative event incidence difference, relative absolute event incidence difference, and relative entropy of time-to-event distributions. Differences in health economic outcomes were also illustrated for the case study. Results. In the simulation study, the ESPD and MDR approaches outperformed the ESD and UDR approaches, in terms of both event incidence differences and relative entropy. Disease pathway and data characteristics, such as the number of competing risks and overlap between competing time-to-event distributions, substantially affected the approaches’ performance. Although no considerable differences in health economic outcomes were observed, the case study showed that the ESPD approach was most sensitive to low event rates, which negatively affected performance. Conclusions. Based on overall performance, the recommended modeling approach for implementing competing risks in DES models is the MDR approach, which is defined according to the general strategy of selecting the time-to-event first and the corresponding event second. The ESPD approach is a less complex and equally performing alternative if sufficient observations are available for each competing event (i.e., the internal validity shows appropriate data representation).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)57-73
Number of pages17
JournalMedical decision making
Volume39
Issue number1
Early online date27 Dec 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Colorectal Neoplasms
Entropy
Incidence
Economics
Health

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D
  • competing risks
  • discrete event simulation
  • individual patient data
  • survival analysis
  • competing events

Cite this

@article{8f69e0bfb1e649afaf64850b7fb55010,
title = "Comparing Strategies for Modeling Competing Risks in Discrete-Event Simulations: A Simulation Study and Illustration in Colorectal Cancer",
abstract = "Background. Different strategies toward implementing competing risks in discrete-event simulation (DES) models are available. This study aims to provide recommendations regarding modeling approaches that can be defined based on these strategies by performing a quantitative comparison of alternative modeling approaches. Methods. Four modeling approaches were defined: 1) event-specific distribution (ESD), 2) event-specific probability and distribution (ESPD), 3) unimodal joint distribution and regression model (UDR), and 4) multimodal joint distribution and regression model (MDR). Each modeling approach was applied to uncensored individual patient data in a simulation study and a case study in colorectal cancer. Their performance was assessed in terms of relative event incidence difference, relative absolute event incidence difference, and relative entropy of time-to-event distributions. Differences in health economic outcomes were also illustrated for the case study. Results. In the simulation study, the ESPD and MDR approaches outperformed the ESD and UDR approaches, in terms of both event incidence differences and relative entropy. Disease pathway and data characteristics, such as the number of competing risks and overlap between competing time-to-event distributions, substantially affected the approaches’ performance. Although no considerable differences in health economic outcomes were observed, the case study showed that the ESPD approach was most sensitive to low event rates, which negatively affected performance. Conclusions. Based on overall performance, the recommended modeling approach for implementing competing risks in DES models is the MDR approach, which is defined according to the general strategy of selecting the time-to-event first and the corresponding event second. The ESPD approach is a less complex and equally performing alternative if sufficient observations are available for each competing event (i.e., the internal validity shows appropriate data representation).",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D, competing risks, discrete event simulation, individual patient data, survival analysis, competing events",
author = "Koen Degeling and Hendrik Koffijberg and Franken, {Mira D.} and Miriam Koopman and IJzerman, {Maarten J.}",
note = "Sage deal",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0272989X18814770",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "57--73",
journal = "Medical decision making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "1",

}

Comparing Strategies for Modeling Competing Risks in Discrete-Event Simulations : A Simulation Study and Illustration in Colorectal Cancer. / Degeling, Koen; Koffijberg, Hendrik; Franken, Mira D.; Koopman, Miriam; IJzerman, Maarten J. (Corresponding Author).

In: Medical decision making, Vol. 39, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 57-73.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Strategies for Modeling Competing Risks in Discrete-Event Simulations

T2 - A Simulation Study and Illustration in Colorectal Cancer

AU - Degeling, Koen

AU - Koffijberg, Hendrik

AU - Franken, Mira D.

AU - Koopman, Miriam

AU - IJzerman, Maarten J.

N1 - Sage deal

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background. Different strategies toward implementing competing risks in discrete-event simulation (DES) models are available. This study aims to provide recommendations regarding modeling approaches that can be defined based on these strategies by performing a quantitative comparison of alternative modeling approaches. Methods. Four modeling approaches were defined: 1) event-specific distribution (ESD), 2) event-specific probability and distribution (ESPD), 3) unimodal joint distribution and regression model (UDR), and 4) multimodal joint distribution and regression model (MDR). Each modeling approach was applied to uncensored individual patient data in a simulation study and a case study in colorectal cancer. Their performance was assessed in terms of relative event incidence difference, relative absolute event incidence difference, and relative entropy of time-to-event distributions. Differences in health economic outcomes were also illustrated for the case study. Results. In the simulation study, the ESPD and MDR approaches outperformed the ESD and UDR approaches, in terms of both event incidence differences and relative entropy. Disease pathway and data characteristics, such as the number of competing risks and overlap between competing time-to-event distributions, substantially affected the approaches’ performance. Although no considerable differences in health economic outcomes were observed, the case study showed that the ESPD approach was most sensitive to low event rates, which negatively affected performance. Conclusions. Based on overall performance, the recommended modeling approach for implementing competing risks in DES models is the MDR approach, which is defined according to the general strategy of selecting the time-to-event first and the corresponding event second. The ESPD approach is a less complex and equally performing alternative if sufficient observations are available for each competing event (i.e., the internal validity shows appropriate data representation).

AB - Background. Different strategies toward implementing competing risks in discrete-event simulation (DES) models are available. This study aims to provide recommendations regarding modeling approaches that can be defined based on these strategies by performing a quantitative comparison of alternative modeling approaches. Methods. Four modeling approaches were defined: 1) event-specific distribution (ESD), 2) event-specific probability and distribution (ESPD), 3) unimodal joint distribution and regression model (UDR), and 4) multimodal joint distribution and regression model (MDR). Each modeling approach was applied to uncensored individual patient data in a simulation study and a case study in colorectal cancer. Their performance was assessed in terms of relative event incidence difference, relative absolute event incidence difference, and relative entropy of time-to-event distributions. Differences in health economic outcomes were also illustrated for the case study. Results. In the simulation study, the ESPD and MDR approaches outperformed the ESD and UDR approaches, in terms of both event incidence differences and relative entropy. Disease pathway and data characteristics, such as the number of competing risks and overlap between competing time-to-event distributions, substantially affected the approaches’ performance. Although no considerable differences in health economic outcomes were observed, the case study showed that the ESPD approach was most sensitive to low event rates, which negatively affected performance. Conclusions. Based on overall performance, the recommended modeling approach for implementing competing risks in DES models is the MDR approach, which is defined according to the general strategy of selecting the time-to-event first and the corresponding event second. The ESPD approach is a less complex and equally performing alternative if sufficient observations are available for each competing event (i.e., the internal validity shows appropriate data representation).

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

KW - competing risks

KW - discrete event simulation

KW - individual patient data

KW - survival analysis

KW - competing events

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X18814770

DO - 10.1177/0272989X18814770

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 57

EP - 73

JO - Medical decision making

JF - Medical decision making

SN - 0272-989X

IS - 1

ER -