Prostate cancer-specific survival differences in patients treated by radical prostatectomy versus curative radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the cause-specific survival of patients who received radiotherapy to those who received surgery for cure of their prostate cancer using a number of design and analytic steps to mitigate confounding by indication. METHODS: This was a case-cohort study of 2213 patients in the Ontario Cancer Registry diagnosed between 1990 and 1998 who were either treatment candidates or received curative radiotherapy or surgery. Cases included patients who died of prostate cancer within 10 years. The study population was restricted to those who were candidates for either treatment (radiotherapy or surgery) based on disease severity (low and intermediate risk using the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada risk groups). The median follow-up was 51 months. Cause-specific survival was analyzed using Cox-proportional hazards regression with case-cohort variance adjustment. Results from intent-to-treat analyses were compared to results by treatment received. RESULTS: Adjusted hazard ratios for risk of prostate cancer death for radiotherapy compared to surgery for the entire study population were 1.62 (95%CI 1.00-2.61) and 2.02 (1.19-3.43) analyzing by intent-to-treat and treatment received, respectively. Intent-to-treat hazard ratios for the low- and intermediate-risk groups were 0.87 (0.28-2.76) and 1.57 (0.95-2.61), respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall results were driven by the finding in the intermediate-risk group, which indicated that radiotherapy was not as effective as surgery in this group. Confirmation was needed with special attention paid to risk stratification and the impact of more contemporary delivery of these treatment options.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".