Radical prostatectomy improves survival in selected metastatic prostate cancer patients: A North American population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test whether radical prostatectomy might result in better survival than external beam radiation therapy in metastatic prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer patients with M1a/b substages, treated with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy were abstracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2016). Temporal trend analyses, propensity score matching, cumulative incidence plots, multivariate competing risks regression models and landmark analyses were used. RESULTS: Of 4280 patients, 954 (22.3%) were treated with radical prostatectomy. After propensity score matching, 5-year cancer-specific mortality was 47.0 versus 53.0% in radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiation therapy patients (P = 0.003). In propensity score matched competing risks regression models, radical prostatectomy was associated with lower cancer-specific mortality versus external beam radiation therapy (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.90; P = 0.001). Finally, landmark analyses rejected the bias favoring radical prostatectomy. Finally, in subgroup analyses, we relied on selection criteria that most closely resembled the STAMPEDE criteria and a similar hazard ratio of 0.8 (P < 0.001) was recorded. CONCLUSION: In metastatic prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy results in lower cancer-specific mortality relative to external beam radiation therapy. Even after adjustment for age at diagnosis, prostate-specific antigen and biopsy Gleason grade grouping, lower cancer-specific mortality rates are recorded in radical prostatectomy patients than in external beam radiation therapy patients. As a result, radical prostatectomy should be considered as a treatment option in selected metastatic prostate cancer patients. However, further validation will be provided by ongoing clinical trials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".