Survival and cost associated with chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy among resected pancreas cancer patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
351 Background: Pancreas cancer is expensive to treat, and the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiation (CRT) following resection is debated. We compared both survival and healthcare costs by adjuvant therapy after curative-intent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreas adenocarcinoma (PC). Methods: All patients with resected PC in Ontario, Canada diagnosed 2004 to 2014 were identified and linked to administrative healthcare databases. Stratified Kaplan—Meier survival curves and log-rank test compared survival across treatment groups. Costs were assessed from the perspective of Ontario’s single-payer healthcare system and compared between CT and CRT. A one-year time horizon was used from the date of surgery. Results: 677 PC patients met all inclusion/exclusion criteria and underwent curative-intent PD with 77% receiving CT and 23% CRT. Median survival after resection was 21.7 and 18.9 months for CT and CRT groups, respectively. Patients receiving CRT were less likely to have high comorbidity burden (ADG ≥ 10), but were similar across other demographics. CRT patients were more likely to have margin positive disease. In a subgroup of 489 patients with margin negative disease, median survival in the node negative patients (n = 156) was 28.0 months for CRT and 24.7 months for CT (p = 0.8297, logrank). Median survival in the node positive patients (n = 333) was 20.6 months and 21.8 months for the CRT and CT patients, respectively (p = 0.9856, logrank). The median total one-year cost for CT was $52,575 (USD); CRT was $68,216 (Table 1). Conclusions: Patients who underwent adjuvant CT and CRT after PD for PC had similar overall survival, but healthcare expenditures were significantly higher in the CRT group. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".