The cost of treatment and its related complications for men who receive surgery or radiation therapy for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to examine the costs related to treatment and treatment-related complications for patients treated with surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of men who underwent open radical prostatectomy or radiation from 2004-2009 in Ontario, Canada. Costs, including initial treatment and inpatient hospitalization, emergency room visit, outpatient consultation, physician billings, and medication costs, were determined for five years following treatment using a validated costing algorithm. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to assess the association between treatment modality and costs. RESULTS: A total of 28 849 men underwent treatment for localized prostate cancer from 2004- 2009. In the five years following treatment, men who underwent radiation (n=12 675) had 21% higher total treatment and treatment-related costs than men who underwent surgery ($16 716/person vs. $13 213/person). Based on multivariable analysis, while men who underwent XRT had a lower relative cost in their first year after treatment (relative rate [RR] 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.0; p=0.025), after year 2, annual costs were significantly higher in the radiation group compared to the surgery group (total cost for year 5, RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.17-1.76; p<0.0001). Our results were similar when restricted to young, healthy men and to older men. CONCLUSIONS: Men who undergo radiation have significantly higher five-year total treatment-related costs compared to men who undergo open radical prostatectomy. While surgery was associated with slightly higher initial costs, radiotherapy had higher costs in subsequent years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".