Survival after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Based on the natural history of localized prostate cancer, the life expectancy (LE) of men treated with either radical prostatectomy (RP) or definitive external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) should exceed 10 years. To test this hypothesis, we examined overall survival rates after RP or EBRT in a contemporary population-based cohort. METHODS: Within a population-based cohort we assessed crude survival in 17 570 men diagnosed with prostate cancer who were either treated with RP (n = 9678) or definitive EBRT (n = 7892) between 1989 and 2000. Age and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score at treatment represented covariates. In order to control for prostate cancer-related mortality, we repeated analyses for 9131 men who did not receive any secondary treatment for prostate cancer. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, the actuarial 10-year survival probability after RP was 75.3%, versus 36.7% after EBRT (p < 0.001). In those who did not receive any secondary treatment, the actuarial 10-year survival probability after RP was 81.1%, versus 30.4% after EBRT (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression models, EBRT was associated with a 2.8-fold (p < 0.001) and 3.9-fold (p < 0.001) higher risk of mortality in the entire cohort and in the cohort without secondary treatment, respectively. Increased CCI score and increased age were also associated with a higher risk of mortality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Some men treated with EBRT and, to a lesser extent, those treated with RP may have insufficient LE to warrant therapy with curative intent. More stringent selection criteria are necessary to avoid overtreatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".