ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026
Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy Across Different Risk Stratifications in the United States.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radical prostatectomy is a potentially curative treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPC), but there is limited literature comprehensively describing clinical and economic outcomes stratified by risk group. This study compared survival and healthcare costs following radical prostatectomy between patients with high-risk and low/intermediate-risk LPC in routine urology practice in the US. Methods: Linked electronic medical records and administrative claims were used to identify men with LPC undergoing radical prostatectomy (index date). Patients were classified into high-risk or low/intermediate-risk cohorts based on staging, prostate-specific antigen test results, and Gleason score, in alignment with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Results: Patients in the high-risk cohort (N=7542) had significantly higher rates of metastasis (36 months: hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 3.80 [3.31, 4.38], p<0.001; 60 months: 3.59 [3.19, 4.04], p<0.001) and disease progression (36 months: 3.49 [3.28, 3.71], p<0.001; 60 months: 3.37 [3.18, 3.57], p<0.001) compared to patients in the low/intermediate-risk cohort (N=11,429). In the cost subgroup, the high-risk cohort (N=1488) incurred significantly higher mean total all-cause healthcare costs (cost difference [95% CI]: $9134 [5999, 12,400] per-patient-per-year, p<0.001) and mean total PC-related healthcare costs ($7502 [4718, 10,279] per-patient-per-year, p<0.001) compared to the low/intermediate-risk cohort (N=2572) post index. Conclusion: In this real-world analysis of patients with LPC who underwent radical prostatectomy, high-risk disease was significantly associated with poorer survival and higher healthcare costs post-procedure compared to low/intermediate-risk LPC. These findings demonstrate the heightened clinical and economic burden observed with high-risk LPC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.