Non‐cancer mortality in elderly prostate cancer patients treated with combination of radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To test for rates of other cause mortality (OCM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in elderly prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with the combination of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) versus RP alone, since elderly PCa patients may be over-treated. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2016), cumulative incidence plots, after propensity score matching for cT-stage, cN-stage, prostate specific antigen, age and biopsy Gleason score, and multivariable competing risks regression models (socioeconomic status, pathological Gleason score) addressed OCM and CSM in patients (70-79, 70-74, and 75-79 years) treated with RP and EBRT versus RP alone. RESULTS: Of 18,126 eligible patients aged 70-79 years, 2520 (13.9%) underwent RP and EBRT versus 15,606 (86.1%) RP alone. After propensity score matching, 10-year OCM rates were respectively 27.9 versus 20.3% for RP and EBRT versus RP alone (p < .001), which resulted in a multivariable HR of 1.4 (p < .001). Moreover, 10-year CSM rates were respectively 13.4 versus 5.5% for RP and EBRT versus RP alone. In subgroup analyses separately addressing 70-74 year old and 75-79 years old PCa patients, 10-year OCM rates were 22.8 versus 16.2% and 39.5 versus 24.0% for respectively RP and EBRT versus RP alone patients (all p < .001). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients treated with RP and EBRT exhibited worrisome rates of OCM. These higher than expected OCM rates question the need for combination therapy (RP and EBRT) in elderly PCa patients and indicate the need for better patient selection, when combination therapy is contemplated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".