Journal of Data Science

When comparing two survival curves, three tests are widely used: the Cox proportional hazards test, the logrank test, and the Wilcoxon test. Despite their popularity in survival data analysis, there is no clear clinical interpretation especially when the proportional hazard assumption is not valid. Meanwhile, the restricted mean survival time (RMST) offers an intuitive and clinically meaningful interpretation. We compare these four tests with regards to statistical power under many configurations (e.g., proportional hazard, early benefit, delayed benefit, and crossing survivals) with data simulated from the Weibull distributions. We then use an example from a lung cancer trial to compare their required sample sizes. As expected, the CoxPH test is more powerful than others when the PH assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is often preferable when there is a decreasing trajectory in the event rate as time goes. The RMST test is much more powerful than others when a new treatment has early benefit. The recommended test(s) under each configuration are suggested in this article.