Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 6, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Comparing Modeling Approaches for Discrete Event Simulations With Competing Risks Based on Censored Individual
Koen Degeling1, Maarten J IJzerman2, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn3
1Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Objectives:
This study aimed to provide detailed guidance on modeling approaches for implementing competing events in discrete event simulations based on censored individual patient data (IPD).
Methods:
The event-specific distributions (ESDs) approach sampled times from event-specific time-to-event distributions and simulated the first event to occur. The unimodal distribution and regression approach sampled a time from a combined unimodal time-to-event distribution, representing all events, and used a (multinomial) logistic regression model to select the event to be simulated. A simulation study assessed performance in terms of relative absolute event incidence difference and relative entropy of time-to-event distributions for different types and levels of right censoring, numbers of events, distribution overlap, and sample sizes. Differences in cost-effectiveness estimates were illustrated in a colorectal cancer case study.
Results:
Increased levels of censoring negatively affected the modeling approaches' performance. A lower number of competing events and higher overlap of distributions improved performance. When IPD were censored at random times, ESD performed best. When censoring occurred owing to a maximum follow-up time for 2 events, ESD performed better for a low level of censoring (ie, 10%). For 3 or 4 competing events, ESD better represented the probabilities of events, whereas unimodal distribution and regression better represented the time to events. Differences in cost-effectiveness estimates, both compared with no censoring and between approaches, increased with increasing censoring levels.
Conclusions:
Modelers should be aware of the different modeling approaches available and that selection between approaches may be informed by data characteristics. Performing and reporting extensive validation efforts remains essential to ensure IPD are appropriately represented.
Related Concept Videos
Censoring Survival Data
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Cancer Survival Analysis
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...

