Treatment trends and Medicare reimbursements for localized prostate cancer in elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The absolute and proportional numbers of elderly patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) are on the rise. We examined treatment trends and reimbursement figures in localized PCa patients aged ≥80 years. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2008, we identified 30 217 localized PCa patients aged ≥80 years in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database. Alternative treatment modalities consisted of conservative management (CM), radiation therapy (RT), radical prostatectomy (RP), and primary androgen-deprivation therapy (PADT). For all four modalities, utilization and reimbursements were examined. RESULTS: PADT was the most frequently used treatment modality between 2000 and 2005. CM became the dominant treatment modality from 2006-2008. RP rates were marginal. RT ranked third, and its annual rate increased from 20.77% in 2000 to 29.13% in 2008. Median individual reimbursement of RT was highest and ranged from $29 343 in 2000 to $31 090 in 2008, followed by RP (from $20 560 in 2000 to $19 580 in 2008), PADT (from $18 901 in 2000 to $8000 in 2008), and CM (from $1824 in 2000 to $1938 in 2008). RT contributed to most of the cumulative annual reimbursements from 2003 (49.24%) to 2008 (72.97%). PADT ranked first from 2000 (54.56%) to 2002 (50.49%), but decreased by 19.40% in 2008. CM's contribution increased from 4.42% in 2000 to 6.96% in 2008. RP's share of reimbursements was stable during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results, focusing on localized PCa treatment in patients aged ≥80 years, showed an important increase in rates, median cost, and proportion of cumulative cost related to RT.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".