MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The economic burden of prostate cancer

2011· review· en· W1504213150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claus G. Roehrborn, Libby Black

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerWatchful waitingLife expectancyProstatectomyCancerEurosProstateGynecologyEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men. Treatment is costly; the majority of men are treated with radiation or surgery, but even watchful waiting strategies are expensive. With increasing life expectancy more men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer, effectively increasing the economic burden of this disease. This study provides estimates of the cost of prostate cancer for different countries. These estimates could be used to populate models that explore economic costs of treating and preventing prostate cancer. Our review found considerable variation in costs across different countries, which may be due to differences in detection and management practices. In the present review we discuss expenditure on prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up and evaluate the cost of prostate cancer and its management in different countries. Prostate cancer costs were identified from published data and internet sources. To provide up‐to‐date comparisons, costs were inflated to 2010 levels and the most recent exchange rates were applied. A high proportion of the costs are incurred in the first year after diagnosis; in 2006, this amounted to 106.7–179.0 million euros (€) in the European countries where these data were available (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands). In the USA, the total estimated expenditure on prostate cancer was 9.862 billion US dollars ($) in 2006. The mean annual costs per patient in the USA were $10 612 in the initial phase after diagnosis, $2134 for continuing care and $33 691 in the last year of life. In Canada, hospital and drug expenditure on prostate cancer totalled C$103.1 million in 1998. In Australia, annual costs for prostate cancer care in 1993–1994 were 101.1 million Australian dollars. Variations in costs between countries were attributed to differences in incidence and management practices. Per patient costs depend on cancer stage at diagnosis, survival and choice of treatment. Despite declining mortality rates, costs are expected to rise owing to increased diagnosis, diagnosis at an earlier stage and increased survival. Unless new strategies are devised to increase the efficiency of healthcare provision, the economic burden of prostate cancer will continue to rise.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations203
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207