THE AIM OF THE "LIVING PAPER"

​

In the era of Digital-data, the “web” became a primary source where individuals could draw healthcare information. Patients are prepared to bypass their nearest Centres to underwent surgery at more distant hospital, that better meet their needs. Given the incidence with which people search for PCa treatment options, it appears to be mandatory to safeguard patient’s knowledge in order to guarantee accurate, comprehensive, evidence-based information pertaining to surgical approaches “pro” and “cons”.

​

Since trends could fluctuate, we created the present website where the reader can check trends in a real-time fashion. This new supplementary feature makes the present a “living paper” that updates itself daily. 

​

Prostate Cancer (PCa) is the 2th most common tumour worldwide with 164.690 estimated new cases and 29.430 death in US in 2018 [1,2].

​

Radical prostatectomy (RP), hormonal therapy (HTh) and radiotherapy (RTh) have been the only available treatments for PCa for many years [3]. In the last decades, new screening methods resulted in significant stage migration toward more favourable prognoses and a huge effort was made to develop new technologies resulting in less invasive options that can be offered to patients [4]. Recently it has been shown that national trends in prostate biopsy and RP volumes decreased following the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation against prostate specific antigen screening [5] leading to a reduction in overtreatment in favour of monitoring options. Active surveillance (AS) came imperiously into play [6], becoming an initial choice for low-risk PCa patients [4].

​

Short and long-term outcomes have been widely explored in clinical trials and national database analyses [7-12]. Nevertheless, no study investigated the impact of PCa treatments and their mind-set shift on worldwide population’ knowledge and opinion.

​

It has been estimated that internet users in 2018 are 4.021 billion. The rapid explosion of digital health-data has resulted in more people seeking on the “web” for healthcare making it a primary source where individuals could draw fast and comprehensive information.

 

According to the latest Netmarketshare report, the 73.3% of searches are powered by Google. Google engine now processes almost 68.000 search-queries every second which translates to over 5.8 billion searches per day and 2.1 trillion searches per year worldwide. The availability of these digital-data could consent to analyse and predict trends over the time.

​

Google Trends (GT) is a free, easily accessible search tool which enables to analyse worldwide “big data” on the relative popularity of search terms. Its use in research increased over the time, providing interesting results in term of epidemiological surveillance as well as health and cancer screening practices.

 

In the present website are shown trends on public interest in PCa treatment options to get answers on 3 key questions (KQ): KQ1: which the worldwide interest in PCa treatments; KQ2: how PCa treatments compare regarding their people interest; KQ3: Which is the impact of USPSTF Screening recommendation and National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) guidelines endorsements on web searching for PCa treatments.

 

​

​

​

​

REFERENCES

​

1.            Ferlay, J., et al., Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International journal of cancer, 2015. 136(5): p. E359-E386.

2.            Siegel, R.L., K.D. Miller, and A. Jemal, Cancer statistics, 2018. 2018. 68(1): p. 7-30.

3.            Hankey, B.F., et al., Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer—part I: evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1999. 91(12): p. 1017-1024.

4.            Mottet, N., et al., EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. European urology, 2017. 71(4): p. 618-629.

5.            Moyer, V.A., Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 2012. 157(2): p. 120-34.

6.            (NCCN), N.C.C.N., NCCN Clinical Practive Guidelines in Oncology on Prostate Cancer. V.1.2010. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx, 2010.

7.            Cooperberg, M.R., J.M. Broering, and P.R. Carroll, Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2010. 28(7): p. 1117-23.

8.            Cooperberg, M.R. and P.R. Carroll, Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA, 2015. 314(1): p. 80-82.

9.            Kapoor, D.A., et al., Utilization trends in prostate cancer therapy. J Urol, 2011. 186(3): p. 860-4.

10.          Chen, J., et al., National trends in management of localized prostate cancer: A population based analysis 2004-2013. Prostate, 2018. 78(7): p. 512-520.

11.          Malouff, T., et al., Trends in the use of radiation therapy for stage IIA prostate cancer from 2004 to 2013: a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2017. 20(3): p. 334-338.

12.          Weiner, A.B., et al., National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol, 2015. 193(1): p. 95-102.

​

​