IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i1p57-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Koen Degeling

    (Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands)

  • Hendrik Koffijberg

    (Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands)

  • Mira D. Franken

    (Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Miriam Koopman

    (Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Maarten J. IJzerman

    (Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
    Cancer Health Services Research Unit, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia)

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).

Suggested Citation

  • Koen Degeling & Hendrik Koffijberg & Mira D. Franken & Miriam Koopman & Maarten J. IJzerman, 2019. "Comparing Strategies for Modeling Competing Risks in Discrete-Event Simulations: A Simulation Study and Illustration in Colorectal Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(1), pages 57-73, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:1:p:57-73
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18814770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18814770
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18814770?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grun, Bettina & Leisch, Friedrich, 2007. "Fitting finite mixtures of generalized linear regressions in R," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(11), pages 5247-5252, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jesús Isaac Vázquez-Serrano & Rodrigo E. Peimbert-García & Leopoldo Eduardo Cárdenas-Barrón, 2021. "Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-20, November.
    2. David Glynn & John Giardina & Julia Hatamyar & Ankur Pandya & Marta Soares & Noemi Kreif, 2024. "Integrating decision modeling and machine learning to inform treatment stratification," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1772-1792, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sandeep Rath & Kumar Rajaram, 2022. "Staff Planning for Hospitals with Implicit Cost Estimation and Stochastic Optimization," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 1271-1289, March.
    2. Lebret, Rémi & Iovleff, Serge & Langrognet, Florent & Biernacki, Christophe & Celeux, Gilles & Govaert, Gérard, 2015. "Rmixmod: The R Package of the Model-Based Unsupervised, Supervised, and Semi-Supervised Classification Mixmod Library," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i06).
    3. Zhou, Yang & Shi, Zhixiong & Shi, Zhengyu & Gao, Qing & Wu, Libo, 2019. "Disaggregating power consumption of commercial buildings based on the finite mixture model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 243(C), pages 35-46.
    4. Lluís Bermúdez & Dimitris Karlis & Isabel Morillo, 2020. "Modelling Unobserved Heterogeneity in Claim Counts Using Finite Mixture Models," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Grün, Bettina & Leisch, Friedrich, 2008. "FlexMix Version 2: Finite Mixtures with Concomitant Variables and Varying and Constant Parameters," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 28(i04).
    6. repec:jss:jstsof:28:i04 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Mukta Paliwal & Anand Patwardhan, 2013. "Identification of clusters in tropical cyclone tracks of North Indian Ocean," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 68(2), pages 645-656, September.
    8. Bermúdez, Lluís & Karlis, Dimitris, 2012. "A finite mixture of bivariate Poisson regression models with an application to insurance ratemaking," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 3988-3999.
    9. Dimitris Karlis & Purushottam Papatla & Sudipt Roy, 2016. "Finite mixtures of censored Poisson regression models," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 70(2), pages 100-122, May.
    10. Omerovic, Sanela & Friedl, Herwig & Grün, Bettina, 2022. "Modelling Multiple Regimes in Economic Growth by Mixtures of Generalised Nonlinear Models," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 124-135.
    11. Proust-Lima, Cécile & Philipps, Viviane & Liquet, Benoit, 2017. "Estimation of Extended Mixed Models Using Latent Classes and Latent Processes: The R Package lcmm," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 78(i02).
    12. Abhinandan Dalal & Diganta Mukherjee & Subhrajyoty Roy, 2020. "The Information Content of Taster's Valuation in Tea Auctions of India," Papers 2005.02814, arXiv.org.
    13. Oyarzun, Carlos & Sanjurjo, Adam & Nguyen, Hien, 2017. "Response functions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-31.
    14. Heinz Holling & Katrin Jansen & Walailuck Böhning & Dankmar Böhning & Susan Martin & Patarawan Sangnawakij, 2022. "Estimation of Effect Heterogeneity in Rare Events Meta-Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 1081-1102, September.
    15. Francesca Torti & Marco Riani & Gianluca Morelli, 2021. "Semiautomatic robust regression clustering of international trade data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 30(3), pages 863-894, September.
    16. Spindler, M., 2014. "“They do know what they are doing ... at least most of them.†Asymmetric Information in the (private) Disability Insurance," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 14/16, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. Luca Greco, 2022. "Robust fitting of mixtures of GLMs by weighted likelihood," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 106(1), pages 25-48, March.
    18. Nguyen, Hien D. & McLachlan, Geoffrey J., 2016. "Laplace mixture of linear experts," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 177-191.
    19. Naoki Sudo, 2020. "Two Types of Support for Redistribution of Wealth: Consistent and Inconsistent Policy Preferences," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Cristina Bernini & Maria Francesca Cracolici & Cinzia Viroli, 2017. "Does Tourism Consumption Behaviour Mirror Differences in Living Standards?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 1157-1171, December.
    21. Bettina Grün & Friedrich Leisch, 2008. "Identifiability of Finite Mixtures of Multinomial Logit Models with Varying and Fixed Effects," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 25(2), pages 225-247, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:1:p:57-73. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.