Consulting "Dr. Google" for Prostate Cancer Treatment Options: A Contemporary Worldwide Trend Analysis.
Active surveillance
Brachytherapy
Cryoablation
Focal therapy
Google Trends
High-intensity focused ultrasound
Hormonal therapy
Living paper
Patient information
Prostate cancer
Prostatectomy
Radiotherapy
Journal
European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
29
03
2019
revised:
14
06
2019
accepted:
03
07
2019
pubmed:
4
8
2019
medline:
1
6
2021
entrez:
4
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the era of digital data, the Internet has become the primary source from which individuals draw healthcare information. The aim of the present study is to determine worldwide public interest in prostate cancer (PCa) treatments, their penetrance and variation, and how they compare over time. An analysis of worldwide search-engine trends included electronic Google queries from people who searched PCa treatment options from January 2004 to August 2018, worldwide. Join-point regression was performed. Comparisons of annual relative search volume (ARSV), average annual percentage change (AAPC), and temporal patterns were analysed to assess loss or gain of interest. Evaluations were made regarding (1) interest in PCa treatments, (2) comparison of people's interest, and (3) impact of the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) screening recommendation and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline endorsements on Internet searching for PCa treatments. The mean ARSV for "prostatectomy" was 73% in 2004 and decreased thereafter, reaching a nadir of 36% in 2014 (APC: -7.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.8, -6.7; p < 0.01). Similarly, decreased interest was recorded for radiation therapy (AAPC: -3.2%; p = 0.1), high-intensity focused ultrasound (AAPC: -2.3%; p = 0.1), hormonal therapy (AAPC: -11.6%; p < 0.01), ablation therapy (AAPC: -4.1%; p < 0.01), cryotherapy (AAPC: -9.9%; p < 0.01), and brachytherapy (AAPC: -8.3%; p < 0.01). A steep interest was found in active surveillance (AS) (AAPC: +14.2%; p < 0.01) and focal therapy (AAPC: +27.5%; p < 0.01). When trends were compared before and after NCCN and USPSTF recommendations, a consistent decrease of all the treatment options was found, while interest in focal therapy and AS showed an augmented mean ARSV (+19.6 and +31.6, respectively). People are increasingly searching the Internet for PCa treatment options. A parallel decrease of interest was found for the nonmonitoring treatments, except for focal therapy, while an important growth of appeal has been recorded for AS. Understanding people inquisitiveness together with their degree of knowledge could be supportive to guiding counselling in the decision-making process and putting effort in certifying patient information. In the era of digital data, patients are increasingly searching the Internet for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options. To safeguard patients' knowledge, it is mandatory to understand how people seek healthcare information, guaranteeing certified and evidence-based information pertaining to PCa treatments options.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the era of digital data, the Internet has become the primary source from which individuals draw healthcare information.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present study is to determine worldwide public interest in prostate cancer (PCa) treatments, their penetrance and variation, and how they compare over time.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
An analysis of worldwide search-engine trends included electronic Google queries from people who searched PCa treatment options from January 2004 to August 2018, worldwide. Join-point regression was performed. Comparisons of annual relative search volume (ARSV), average annual percentage change (AAPC), and temporal patterns were analysed to assess loss or gain of interest.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Evaluations were made regarding (1) interest in PCa treatments, (2) comparison of people's interest, and (3) impact of the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) screening recommendation and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline endorsements on Internet searching for PCa treatments.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
The mean ARSV for "prostatectomy" was 73% in 2004 and decreased thereafter, reaching a nadir of 36% in 2014 (APC: -7.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.8, -6.7; p < 0.01). Similarly, decreased interest was recorded for radiation therapy (AAPC: -3.2%; p = 0.1), high-intensity focused ultrasound (AAPC: -2.3%; p = 0.1), hormonal therapy (AAPC: -11.6%; p < 0.01), ablation therapy (AAPC: -4.1%; p < 0.01), cryotherapy (AAPC: -9.9%; p < 0.01), and brachytherapy (AAPC: -8.3%; p < 0.01). A steep interest was found in active surveillance (AS) (AAPC: +14.2%; p < 0.01) and focal therapy (AAPC: +27.5%; p < 0.01). When trends were compared before and after NCCN and USPSTF recommendations, a consistent decrease of all the treatment options was found, while interest in focal therapy and AS showed an augmented mean ARSV (+19.6 and +31.6, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
People are increasingly searching the Internet for PCa treatment options. A parallel decrease of interest was found for the nonmonitoring treatments, except for focal therapy, while an important growth of appeal has been recorded for AS. Understanding people inquisitiveness together with their degree of knowledge could be supportive to guiding counselling in the decision-making process and putting effort in certifying patient information.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In the era of digital data, patients are increasingly searching the Internet for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options. To safeguard patients' knowledge, it is mandatory to understand how people seek healthcare information, guaranteeing certified and evidence-based information pertaining to PCa treatments options.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31375427
pii: S2588-9311(19)30105-1
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.07.002
pmc: PMC9235534
mid: NIHMS1616950
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
481-488Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA014089
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
J Urol. 2000 Jun;163(6):1743-6
pubmed: 10799173
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
Urol Int. 2018;100(2):139-145
pubmed: 29339653
Eur Urol. 2012 Jan;61(1):11-25
pubmed: 21871711
J Urol. 2011 Sep;186(3):860-4
pubmed: 21788052
Prostate. 2018 May;78(7):512-520
pubmed: 29542178
Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Nov;13(11):641-653
pubmed: 27670618
Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jan;91(1):10-6
pubmed: 26763510
BMC Fam Pract. 2007 Aug 16;8:47
pubmed: 17705836
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Jan 6;102(1):39-46
pubmed: 19996060
Stat Med. 2000 Feb 15;19(3):335-51
pubmed: 10649300
BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 08;5(6):e006678
pubmed: 26056120
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 Sep;20(3):334-338
pubmed: 28398296
JAMA Surg. 2017 Feb 1;152(2):192-198
pubmed: 27806151
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 1;28(7):1117-23
pubmed: 20124165
Eur Urol. 2017 May;71(5):729-737
pubmed: 27597241
JAMA. 2015 Jul 7;314(1):80-2
pubmed: 26151271
Nat Rev Urol. 2018 Sep;15(9):532-534
pubmed: 30013154
Nat Rev Urol. 2018 Oct;15(10):627-642
pubmed: 30065357
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 17;157(2):120-34
pubmed: 22801674
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015 Jun;18(2):149-54
pubmed: 25667110
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1445-1453
pubmed: 28986012
Stat Med. 2009 Dec 20;28(29):3670-82
pubmed: 19856324
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 13;352(2):154-64
pubmed: 15647578
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 22;9(10):e109583
pubmed: 25337815
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Dec;104(6):1059-1061
pubmed: 30221348
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018 Oct;25:175-178
pubmed: 30096683
JAMA. 2015 Nov 17;314(19):2054-61
pubmed: 26575061
J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):95-102
pubmed: 25106900