Abstract:Purpose: Although the limitations of hazard ratios (HRs) for quantifying treatment effects in right-censored data have been widely discussed, HRs are still preferentially reported over other, more interpretable effect measures. This may stem from the fact that there are few applied examples that directly contrast the HR and its interpretation with alternative effect measures. Methods: We analyzed data from two randomized clinical trials comparing panitumumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOCC) with SOCC alone as first- and second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We report the effect of treatment with panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) using a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the HR and the Kaplan-Meier estimator of cumulative incidence (risk). Further analyses included examining the cumulative incidence curves; kernel-smoothed, non-parametric hazards curves; fitting the Cox model with a continuous time variable; and estimating restricted mean survival as well as median survival. Results: The HR was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.93), while the risk ratio (or relative risk [i.e., ratio of the cumulative incidence among the treated versus comparator]) was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.02). These two measures suggest apparently different conclusions: either a treatment benefit or no effect. Through subsequent analyses, we demonstrated that, while the cumulative incidence of the outcome was similar by the end of follow-up regardless of treatment, the panitumumab treated group experienced longer PFS than those randomized to SOCC. Substantial nonproportional hazards were evident with panitumumab treatment reducing the hazard of progression/mortality during the first ~1.75 years but associated with an increased hazard of progress/mortality thereafter. Discussion: This example underscores the difficulties in interpreting HRs, particularly in the setting of qualitative violations of proportional hazards, and the value of quantifying treatment effects via multiple effect measures.

The hazard ratio is interpretable as an odds or a probability under the assumption of proportional hazards

The built-in selection bias of hazard ratios formalized

Relative risks, the probability of necessity, and attributable fractions

Subtleties in the interpretation of hazard ratios

Interpreting Hazard Ratios: Insights from Frailty Models

The built-in selection bias of hazard ratios formalized using structural causal models

Likelihood ratio interpretation of the relative risk

Estimate Risk Difference and Number Needed to Treat in Survival Analysis.

Supplementary Figure S2 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Non-collapsibility and Built-in Selection Bias of Hazard Ratio in Randomized Controlled Trials

A nonparametric proportional risk model to assess a treatment effect in time‐to‐event data

A sensitivity analysis approach for the causal hazard ratio in randomized and observational studies

Risk ratios for contagious outcomes

Prevalence odds ratio versus prevalence ratio: choice comes with consequences

PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS WITH CONTINUOUS MARKS

Hazard Ratios and Alternative Effect Measures: An Applied Illustration

A non-parametric proportional risk model to assess a treatment effect in time-to-event data

Non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias of period-specific and conventional hazard ratio in randomized controlled trials

Odds Ratios are far from "portable": A call to use realistic models for effect variation in meta-analysis

Supplementary Figure S4 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Supplementary Figure S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation