Impact of age at diagnosis of de novo metastatic prostate cancer on survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An older age at the diagnosis of prostate cancer has been linked to worse prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). However, these studies were conducted before the approval of many life-prolonging drugs. This study was aimed at describing outcomes in a contemporary cohort of men diagnosed with de novo metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) and assessing associations with the age at diagnosis while controlling for known prognostic factors. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry was used to identify men diagnosed with mPCa from 2004 to 2014. Men were classified by 4 age groups: ≤54, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and ≥75 years. The median overall survival, PCSS, and restricted mean survival times for any-cause mortality and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were calculated. Multivariable and subdistribution hazard ratios for PCSM according to age group and with controlling for race, marital status, and income were estimated. RESULTS: Compared with men aged ≤54 years, men aged ≥75 years experienced a mean PCSS at 5 years that was 6.7 months shorter (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-7.8 months). In multivariable analyses, men aged ≥75 years had a 49% increase in the rate of PCSM in comparison with those aged ≤54 years (95% CI, 1.39-1.60). The subdistribution hazard ratio for PCSM between these groups was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.32-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Age was found to be an independent predictor of shorter PCSS in men diagnosed with de novo mPCa even in an era with more effective therapies. Further work is needed to determine the reason for poor outcomes in older men with mPCa.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".