A costing and health-related quality of life study of high intensity focused ultrasound in primary treatment of localized low or intermediate risk prostate cancer in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the third leading cause of death from cancer among Canadian men. High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a novel approach for primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Little is known, however, about its costs. We aimed to collect the direct costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data of HIFU in primary treatment of localized low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in Ontario. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected direct costs and HRQoL data of 20 patients with localized low or intermediate risk prostate cancer who received whole-gland HIFU at a privately owned clinic in Ontario. We compared the direct costs of HIFU, open radical prostatectomy (ORP), robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), and external beam radiation therapy (RT) in primary treatment of localized low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. RESULTS: The average direct costs of HIFU, ORP, RARP, and RT per case in 2023 are $14,886.78, $14,192.26, $21,794.55, and $17,377.51, respectively. The median and interquartile range (IQR) of the study participants' age and HRQoL data prior to the HIFU procedure were 64.5 (11.25) years, 94.5 (8.65), 38.5 (4), 6.0 (4.46), and 22.5 (8.32), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our healthcare payer's perspective costing study revealed median direct costs per case of HIFU and favorable HRQoL outcomes compared to other treatment options for primary treatment of localized low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in Ontario. A health economic model is warranted to analyze the cost-effectiveness of HIFU compared to other treatment options in primary treatment of localized low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".