Comparison of mortality outcomes after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: A population‐based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the mortality outcomes of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy as treatment modalities for patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Our cohort consisted of 68 665 patients with localized prostate cancer, treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, between 1992 and 2005. Propensity-score matching was used to minimize potential bias related to treatment assignment. Competing-risks analyses tested the effect of treatment type on cancer-specific mortality, after accounting for other-cause mortality. All analyses were stratified according to prostate cancer risk groups, baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index and age. RESULTS: For patients treated with radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy, the 10-year cancer-specific mortality rates were 1.4 versus 3.9% in low-intermediate risk prostate cancer and 6.8 versus 11.5% in high-risk prostate cancer, respectively. Rates were 2.4 versus 5.9% in patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0, 2.4 versus 5.1% in patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1, and 2.9 versus 5.2% in patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥2. Rates were 2.1 versus 5.0% in patients aged 65-69 years, 2.8 versus 5.5% in patients aged 70-74 years, and 2.9 versus 7.6% in patients aged 75-80 years (all P < 0.001). At multivariable analyses, radiotherapy was associated with less favorable cancer-specific mortality in all categories (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with radical prostatectomy fare substantially better than those treated with radiotherapy. Patients with high-risk prostate cancer benefit the most from radical prostatectomy. Conversely, the lowest benefit was observed in patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer and/or multiple comorbidities. An intermediate benefit was observed in the other examined categories.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".