The Social Oncology Report 2013

THE SOCIAL
ONCOLOGY
PROJECT
Brian Reid with
Ashlyn Abell | Mark Bennett | Greg Matthews | Kayla Rodriguez
MAY 2013
http://w.cg/tsop13

Digital communication tools have
become increasingly important in
oncology, yet little effort has been put
into quantifying the type and volume
of online conversions. The MDigitalLife
Social Oncology Project project seeks
to put those discussions in context.

OVERVIEW
The Social
Oncology Project
http://w.cg/tsop13

“Information overload” is nearly a cliché in the age of Google, but for oncologists, the data deluge
is especially acute, and it goes far beyond an overflowing inbox. In 1999, researchers published
more than 6,800 PubMed-indexed papers on oncology. That number topped 10,000 by 2002.
Eight years later, it had doubled. And in 2012, 23,459 oncology papers appeared—that’s a rate of
64 manuscripts a day, every day.
There’s no end in sight. The volume of information in the medical literature continues to grow at
about 10 percent a year.
Fortunately, there is no need for any single individual to digest 24,000 journal articles. As the field
has grown, it has also become more specialized. Cancer is no longer viewed as a single disease, or
even a single collection of diseases defined by the location of the cancerous cells—breast cancer,
prostate cancer, lung cancer, leukemia—but as an ever-more diverse set of maladies, differentiated
by a growing set of biomarkers.
3 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Overview
Source: PubMed

The evolution of this information environment, however, has created
some challenges, most notably in how media distills the wealth of
knowledge being created each day. The magazines and newspapers
are ill equipped to deal with the increasing amount of information
because they are constrained by shrinking staffs and moribund
circulation and viewership numbers. And the move to increasing
specialization also presents the difficulty of defining “big news” when
the issues of import to each community of oncologists (and patients)
are different.
A solution is emerging. The response to the related trends of
information overload and specialization has been a flowering of
online information-sharing, allowing groups of like-minded doctors
to coalesce, joined by a host of other stakeholders, from patients to
advocates to caregivers to industry. And while these communities
are still nascent, their rapid growth speaks to an entirely new model
of scientific exchange.
The tools that are being used to build these communities are varied,
ranging from social networks such as Twitter and Facebook to
dedicated online forums to blogs. Each of these mediums allows a
different kind of communication and a different kind of community.
This report will detail the way that this model is taking shape,
examining how the trend of increasing use of social channels has
percolated through the industry. Particular interest will be given to
both where news is “created”—by scientific exchange or by the
news media—as well as how that information is distributed to
different audiences.
13.6 Million
Tweets
1.7 million
News Stories
285,000
Blog Posts
Breakdown of
conversation
locations over
the past year
640,000
Forum Posts

UBIQUITUOUS CONVERSATIONS
At the broadest level, conversations about oncology are ubiquitous. Across four of the primary digital
channels—news, blogs, forums and Twitter, there were some 16.3 million mentions in the United
States in the past year, including more than 13 million tweets, 1.7 million news stories and 285,000
blog posts.
And though those numbers showed some variation, talk of cancer, like the disease itself, was a
constant. That’s not to say that there were not spikes in conversation; mentions of breast cancer
shot up more than 10-fold on the first day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month; leukemia made a
similar-sized jump the day that Indianapolis Colts coach Chuck Pagano announced that he had
been diagnosed with leukemia. And cervical cancer mentions skyrocketed June 15, when Moesha
star Yvette Wilson died of cervical cancer. While the march of research continues apace, it’s
clear that the fodder for online discussion remains driven by the experiences of people, not
data. Social media in cancer is firmly rooted in the social.
Not all cancer types tend to have the same sort of dialogue, nor does the volume of conversation
follow the impact of disease. Last year, lung cancer was—by a large margin—the largest cancer
killer in the United States. But conversations about lung cancer lagged behind those of breast and
blood cancer. Breast cancer, on the other hand, which has seen decades-long awareness-building
campaigns, generates more online discussions than the other top four causes of death combined, a
discrepancy driven by high conversation volumes on Twitter and in forums. (Breast cancer was the
most prevalent cancer type for news and blog posting as well, though the gap between breast and
other cancer types was smaller.)
1,600,000
LUNG COLON BREAST PROSTATE LYMPHOMA
180,000
1,400,000 160,000
1,200,000
140,000
1,000,000
120,000
800,000
100,000
600,000
80,000
400,000
60,000
200,000
40,000
20,000
0 0
DEATHS CONVERSATION VOLUME

This report also seeks to look beyond aggregate numbers to examine the way that different
communities are using the tools now available, from professionals to advocates to patients. To fully
explore the data, we examined several different aspects of online oncology discussion, including
social conversations during the American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting in June;
Twitter traffic captured in the MDigitalLife database of verified, practicing physicians; advocacy use
of tools such as Facebook; and several other metrics.
In total, the data show that, even if not mainstream, the sharing of information online by varied
oncology communities is having a real, positive and meaningful impact on the way that information
is spread.
Looking broadly at cancer conversations online, there are four broad conclusions that stem
from the data:
1. The volume of conversation about “cancer” outstrips the sum total of discussions
about specific types of cancer. Though researchers are moving toward a model
in which “cancer” is a less and less useful catch-all term, much of the dialogue
online still looks at the disease as a single, monolithic health concern. As we begin
to look at online data in a longitudinal way, we will pay special attention to whether
we see fragmentation of conversations around cancer.
2. Among cancer types, breast cancer remains the most-discussed cancer type
with a volume of conversation larger than lung, colon, prostate and blood cancers
combined. This reflects heavy interest from the patient community; an analysis of
conversations by doctors shows that breast cancer, while a high-volume topic,
does not outstrip discussions of other cancer types.
3. Awareness months, while they receive little mention in news sources, nonetheless
are rallying points online, driving measurable increases in online dialogue in most
cancer types.
4. Celebrities, more than research or clinical news, tend to create conversations
online. Like awareness months, nearly every major cancer type has seen a spike
in dialogue based on a high-profile individual’s experience with cancer.

The charts below put some of these conclusions in context, showing not only the baseline
conversation volume, but also the specific events that generated extraordinary levels of online traffic.
May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 Aug. 2012 Sept. 2012 Oct. 2012 Nov. 2012 Dec. 2012 Jan. 2013 Feb. 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013
Mentions of Lung Cancer
05001000150020002500
Lung
Cancer
Awareness
Month
Study on
lung cancer
and marijuana use
Source: W2O/Sysomos
020000400006000080000100000
Source: W2O/Sysomos
Overall Mentions of Cancer
Mentions of Prostate Cancer
0500100020003000
Prostate-related
news about Jerry
Brown and Ian
McKellan
ASCO-related
conversations
Source: W2O/Sysomos

Mentions of Breast Cancer
0100003000050000
Breast
Cancer
Awareness
Month
Angelina Jolie
announces
double mastectomy
Source: W2O/Sysomos
Mentions of Colon Cancer
0500100015002000
Colon
Cancer
Awareness
Month
Study on
aspirin as
colon cancer
treatment
Source: W2O/Sysomos
Mentions of Blood Cancer
0200040006000800010000
Football coach
Chuck Pagano
announces he has
leukemia
Manti T'eo story,
involving fictiuous
girlfriend's
leukemia death,
breaks
Source: W2O/Sysomos

ASCO
The Social
Oncology Project
http://w.cg/tsop13

10 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: ASCO
Each year, the greatest concentration of news about cancer
occurs at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical
Oncology (ASCO). Last year, the confab, held in Chicago,
generated more tweets than any other major medical meeting.
This isn’t a surprise. The meeting attracts 25,000 oncology
professionals from around the world, who immerse themselves
in some of the 4,000 different pieces of research presented over
the course of the meeting. Adding to the volume is an influx of
advocates, patients, journalists, investment professionals and
others, all eager to hear the latest news.
Examining ASCO social activity is particularly appealing for
three reasons. First, much of the discussion at ASCO takes
place publicly on Twitter, making it easy to collect and analyze.
Secondly, the use of the conference’s hashtag (#ASCO12) in
tweets further improves analysis. By appending “#ASCO12” to
tweets, participants in the online dialogue can signal, with great
precision, that they are communicating about the meeting.
Finally, Twitter is a vehicle that encourages link-sharing, allowing
analysis not only of the content of the individual, 140-character
missives, but also providing insight into other sources of online
information that are shared among attendees.
Overall, volume at ASCO is related largely to news occurring at
the meeting; last year, two peaks occurred. The first surrounded
the mid-May release of research summaries, or abstracts,
from the meeting. This release was accompanied by a press
teleconference with the conference organizers and led to a
flurry of news coverage—and Twitter activity.
But the largest spike occurred on the first day of the conference,
June 2, when Twitter volume topped 1,500. On June 3 and 4,
more than 1,400 tweets were issued. By June 5, the final day of
ASCO, the volume of tweets had dropped by half.
Five Most
Retweeted
Tweets,
ASCO12

In total, 7,930 tweets tagged with #ASCO12 were published.
Another 3,600 retweets of #ASCO12 content were recorded.
And 4,100 links were shared.
Looking at the links shared, however, gives a slightly different
sense of the meeting. While no URL was included more often
than the abstracts page, reflecting the high number of tweeters
sharing the basic scientific information being presented, the
second-most-common link shared was one to a social event…
featuring tweeting ASCO attendees.
Of note, only two of the most-tweeted links came from what
would be thought of as “traditional” news outlets: one from
The New York Times and one from Forbes. An article penned
by a medical center’s communication staff (the Mayo Clinic)
outranked both Forbes and The Times.
The lack of mainstream media among the top-tweeted links
demonstratesthefundamentalrealityofthenewcommunications
paradigm: we can and should expect that the increasing volume
of information, combined with an emphasis on specialization,
means that there will be more smaller communities talking at
lower volume about more narrow topics.
As a consequence, the individuals that generated the most
engagement at the meeting tended to be those speaking about
broader topics, such as business news or the use of social
media itself, which cuts across areas of sub-specialization.
The most-mentioned user at the meeting was Adam Feuerstein
(@adamfeuerstein), a reporter with TheStreet. He was followed
by Robert Miller (@RSM2800), Mike Thompson (@mtmdphd)
and Steven Tucker (@drsteventucker), all of whom are well
regarded for their interest in the way that digital channels can
be used in the context of oncology.
Top 10
Tweeted Links,
#ASCO12
1. 2013 ASCO Conference
Abstracts (asco.org)
2. The “Unofficial” ASCO 2012
Tweetup (tweetvite.com)
3. Article: Ginseng Fights
Fatigue in Cancer Patients,
Mayo Clinic-Led Study
Finds (mayoclinic.org)
4. Alex’s Lemonade Stand
Foundation Donation Page
(alexslemonade.org)
5. Cancer Progress Home Page
(cancerprogress.net)
6. Post: Key Prostate
Cancer Sessions, PSA Test
Controversy
(incrowdnow.com)
7. Post: Social Media Can
Be a Powerful Tool for
Physician Education, Patient
Engagement (asco.org)
8. Article: Drug Helps Defense
System Fight Cancer
(nytimes.com)
9. Article: ASCO ‘12 Abstract
Dump: Cancer Stocks in
Focus (thestreet.com)
10. Article: New Cancer Data
Shine Spotlight On The
Secret Committees That
Make Medicine’s Toughest
Decisions (forbes.com)

Of the 15 most engaging individuals tweeting at ASCO12, seven were physicians; two were patients;
two, including Feuerstein, were journalists; two were consultants; one was a biotech executive; and
one was an advocate.
ASCO is not a virtual meeting, despite longstanding and impressive efforts by the conference
organizers to make information available digitally before and after the event. As such, it’s an important
opportunity for online communities to interact in real life.
The “unofficial” meeting has spawned two events that are explicitly designed to draw virtual
groupstogether:antweetup,heldtheeveningbeforetheconferencebegins,andanASCO-sponsored
tweetup at the event itself. Both of those events were successes; the more social “unofficial” event
attracted nearly 50 individuals, the ASCO-sponsored event included informal remarks from three
professionals who had studied the impact of digital media on physicians, clinical trials and continuing
education.
The two events are being repeated at ASCO13. The “unofficial” tweetup is
again being held on Friday night, while the ASCO-sponsored event will be
held at 3:30 p.m. on Saturday.

USE BY
DOCTORS
The Social
Oncology Project
http://w.cg/tsop13

Physicians are among the most important communities to consider when assessing the impact of
social media on oncology. To best understand the nature of those conversations, we isolated and
analyzed social media use solely by physicians using an internally developed tool called MDigitalLife.
MDigitalLife includes a database of professionals who tweet, matching each Twitter handle to a
National Provider Identification Number, or NPIN. MDigitalLife now tracks more than 3,000 verified
physicians and holds more than 2.5 million in its database.
Among that cohort, discussion of oncology is growing far faster than it is in the general public.
Mentions of “cancer” more than doubled in the past year, with increases in every type of cancer
monitored. While the overall conversation volume was modest—some 27,000 tweets out of the
millions of total tweets about cancer—it reflects the growing use and acceptance of Twitter among
a select group of opinion leaders.
Drilling further into the content of the tweets, it appears that doctors are using this medium as a
way to communicate largely with patients; depending on the specific cancer topic, between 78
and 92 percent of tweets were aimed at a general audience. Among the cancer types analyzed,
those tweeting about lung cancer were the most likely to be communicating with fellow health care
professionals; those discussing skin cancer were least likely to be aimed at professionals.
14 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Use by Doctors
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
DIABETES
HEART DISEASE
ADD/ADHD
AIDS/HIV
BREAST CANCER
PROSTATE CANCER
SKIN CANCER
STROKE
FLU
Top Twitter Topics Among Doctors
MentionsofCancer
Source: MDigital Life database of physician tweets
Breast Cancer
Aweness
Month
Mentions of Cancer
Source:MDigitalLifedatabaseofphysici
BreastCancer
Aweness
Month
Source: MDigitalLife database of physician tweets

The topics of those tweets give a hint at the aim as well. Prevention and awareness made up a
majority of tweets in most areas, but the proportion of other topics varied. In lung cancer, 32 percent
of tweets were about treatment and 17 percent were about diagnostics or were far more likely to
discuss diagnostics (47 percent) than treatment (6 percent).
Of note, these tweets were not necessarily from oncologists, which make up only a small proportion
of tweeting doctors, which may explain why, in the aggregate, so much of the content is directed at
general public awareness.
Still, cancer issues dominate the list of most-mentioned topics among the more than 2 million
tweets that have been indexed in the database. Skin cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer,
respectively, make up the fourth-, fifth- and sixth-most common diseases and conditions discussed
by doctors; only diabetes, flu and stroke have been mentioned more.
In addition to examining cancer conversations in the overall MDigitalLife dataset, we also sought
to compare the activity on Twitter by oncologists to a sampling of their peers in other specialties.
Because MDigitalLife is linked to the NPIN, information about specialties can be easily obtained.
FAMILY
MEDICINE
PSYCHIATRY DERMATOLOGY CARDIOLOGY ONCOLOGY
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0
Specialist Types as a Percentage of the
MDigitalLife Database
Blood Bone Breast Colon Gynecological Lung Prostate Skin
050100150200250300350
Prevention/Awareness
Diagnosis/Detection
Treatment
Research
ConversationTopics
Cancer Type
Source: MDigital Life database of physician tweets
Source: MDigitalLife database of physician tweets
Research
Treatment
Diagnosis/Detection
Prevention/Awareness

Though the number of different physician types associated with the NPIN is extensive, we opted
to compare oncologists with a range of other professionals, looking at those in family medicine,
psychiatry, dermatology and cardiology.
Of the more than 2,500 doctors now captured by the MDigitalLife database, only 2.6 percent
are oncologists. Cardiologists make up 3.5 percent of the dataset, dermatologists 3.7 percent,
psychiatrists 4.3 percent and family medicine practitioners 12.1 percent.
Though oncologists lag behind their peers in one respect, those that are tweeting are tweeting more
than average: of the five specialties examined, only oncologists tweet more than twice a day—2.6
times, on average. Psychiatrists clock in at 1.9 tweets a day, followed by cardiologists (1.8 tweets/
day), family medicine physicians (1.7 tweets/day) and dermatologists (0.7 tweets/day).
Averages can obscure the impact of outliers, however, and oncology has several thought leaders
who frequently engage their peers and the community in larger conversations. On the topic of cancer,
no physician was more engaging that Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s Anas Younes, who generated
961 responses from other participants in the past year. Mike Thomson prompted 797 interactions,
attracting particular attention around ASCO. Robert Miller, with 573 interactions, also drove a large
volume of conversations.
Specialty Average Tweets/Day
Cardiology 1.82
Dermatology 0.72
Family Medicine 1.68
Oncology 2.60
Psychiatry 1.94

Still, the ultimate metric by which doctors and researchers judge the state of the science in any area
is not Twitter. It is the peer-reviewed research process. And in that regard, social media is moving
ahead. Last July, the Journal of Oncology Practice published an eight-page article by Dizon et. al
that examined best practices for the use of social media by oncology professionals and listed the
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social properties operated by 44 National Cancer Institute-
designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.
The paper concluded with a clear call to action:
“Social media hold the promises for a more interactive educational experience
and enhanced opportunities to inﬂuence care delivery as well as expanding and
speeding the dissemination of information both inside and outside the oncology
community. Given the popularity and almost universal appeal of social media we
encourage oncology providers and institutions to learn more and engage in this
ongoing evolution.”

USE BY
PATIENTS
ADVOCATES
The Social
Oncology Project
http://w.cg/tsop13

Doctors are not the only group that has found digital
communication to be useful. A number of advocacy groups have
also taken to social channels to inform, organize and fundraise.
While information on the exact nature of this communication
tends to be anecdotal, there is mounting evidence that digital
advocacy, too, is moving into the mainstream. Several cancer-
related advocacy groups have more than a million “likes” on
Facebook, including Breast Cancer Awareness (3.8 million),
The Breast Cancer Site (3.7 million), Livestrong Foundation (1.7
million) and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (1.2 million).
And the social presence of advocacy groups is largely
untethered to traditional metrics such as private support. The
two most popular groups on Facebook are both associated with
Greater Good, an umbrella organization that doesn’t make the
Forbes 100 list of most-donated-to charities. And while those
organizations that do make the Forbes list have a presence on
Facebook, donations are not a proxy for social engagement.
The American Cancer Society, which brought in more than $800
million in private support, has about 400,000 likes. The Leukemia
Lymphoma Society raised more than a quarter-billion dollars
last year but has only 151,000 likes.
And while those numbers reflect impressive and meaningful
engagement that might not have been possible even a decade
ago, they still lag behind some newer advocacy organizations,
such as Stand Up to Cancer (1 million likes).
But looking at a single page’s “likes” alone misses a crucial
piece of context: new technology makes it easier for large
organizations to empower smaller groups in the organization
(or for smaller groups to empower themselves). In addition to
their main Komen for the Cure page with over 600,000 likes,
Facebook lists more than 1,000 “for the cure” events, many
of them done by affiliates of Susan G. Komen for the Cure or
even individuals that support the organization. While this may
challenge an organization’s ability to push a singular message,
it allows broader participation which can have both positive and
negative outcomes.
19 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Use by Patients and Advocates
Professional
Organizations
Use of social media has been
standard with more than just
charitable or patient-focused
groups. The American Society
of Clinical Oncology has
also pushed its members to
become more digitally savvy,
suggesting “Ten Tips for the
Use of Social Media”:
1. Get involved.
2. Engage often.
3. Always identify yourself.
4. Protect patient
confidentiality and privacy.
5. Contextualize your
activities.
6. Avoid impropriety.
7. Give credit where credit
is due.
8. Professionalism is critical.
9. Separate the personal.
10. Be aware of your
institutional guidelines on
social media.

Patients, too, have used the power of the Internet in novel ways
to expand the ability to teach, learn and connect. These success
stories cannot be measured by traditional monitoring tools, but
the anecdotes that underscore them point to the power of the
medium.
One such story is the #BCSM movement, which began in
2011 as a “tweetchat”—a virtual gathering of Twitter users at
a particular time, all using the same hashtag to keep track of
the conversation. Founded by two survivors, Jody Schoger and
Alicia Staley, the weekly gatherings have attracted hundreds.
Deanna Attai, a breast surgeon who joined the second #BCSM
chat and has become one of the driving forces behind it, told
USA Today that the digital support provided by #BCSM seems
to offer a benefit that goes beyond the age-old in-person support
groups. In those sessions, Attai told the paper: “one or two
patients sort of take over, and it turns into a bitch session. That’s
not what you see with #BCSM. ... We have a common goal—
that’s to educate, empower and support, and all that participate
seem to embrace that.”
Social media has enabled other types of social advocacy as well.
Jennifer Windrum, a lung cancer advocate, used a crowdfunding
platform called startsomegood.com to raise $35,000 to begin
production on a line of sock monkeys to be given away to cancer
patients, with additional proceeds committed to research and
development.
Pushed largely via a Facebook effort, Sock Monkeys Against
Cancer, or SMAC!, attracted 400 backers in a month, allowing
Jennifer—a single advocate unaffiliated with any major
organization—the ability to create a community and a platform
with minimal resources.
20 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Use by Patients and Advocates
Most Active
#BCSM
Participants
May 15, 2012 to
May 15, 2013
Most Active #BCSM
Participants
May 15, 2012 to May 15, 2013
• @jodyms (5356)
• @stales (4561)
• @chemobrainfog (3670)
• @DrAttai (3414)
• @itsthebunk (2489)
• @a4breastcancer (2010)
• @regrounding (1843)
• @ABHuret (1795)
• @Bethlgainer (1261)
• @talkabouthealth (1198)

The Social
Oncology Project
MEDICATIONS
http://w.cg/tsop13

The number of topics discussed within the millions of cancer conversations online each year is
nearly countless, but focusing on a few different topics gives some additional insights into the overall
digital space.
We examined the mentions of the 10 best-selling medications used to treat cancer in 2012, looking
at what drugs were being discussed, where they were being discussed and comparing sales to
online conversations.
The analysis found that, in general, volume of online conversations tracked with overall sales; as
sales went up, so did conversations. However, the exceptions to this trend are worthy of note.
Two medications examined appeared to have fewer conversations than would have been expected
based on sales alone: Eloxatin and Rituxan, while two had higher-than-expected conversation
volumes: Herceptin and Avastin.
22 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Medications
TARCEVA XELODA
SALES (IN MILLIONS) MENTIONS
VELCADE ERBITUX ALIMTA ELOXATIN GLEEVEC HERCEPTIN AVASTIN RITUXAN
4,000
25,000
3,000
20,000
2,000
15,000
1,000
10,000
5,000
0 0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Volume of Mentions (News)
TARCEVA
XELODA
VELCADE
ERBITUX
ALIMTA
ELOXATIN
GLEEVEC
HERCEPTIN
AVASTIN
RITUXAN

The reason that any one medication may be mentioned more or less often is influenced by a number
of factors, from overall prescriptions (which, because of pricing differences between drugs, isn’t
necessary correlated with sales) to differences in news flow. Still, it’s unlikely to be coincidental that
breast cancer drugs generated higher-than-average buzz, given the high volume of general breast
cancer conversations.
On the other end of the scale, no drug received less attention online than Eloxatin, a compound
used to treat colon cancer. Again, the lack of discussion around a colon cancer drug matches the
low level of conversation around colon cancer in general, which generated less online chatter than
any of the other top five cancer killers.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Volume of Mentions (Forums)
TARCEVA
XELODA
VELCADE
ERBITUX
ALIMTA
ELOXATIN
GLEEVEC
HERCEPTIN
AVASTIN
RITUXAN
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Volume of Mentions (Blogs)
TARCEVA
XELODA
VELCADE
ERBITUX
ALIMTA
ELOXATIN
GLEEVEC
HERCEPTIN
AVASTIN
RITUXAN

Rituxan is a special case; while conversation volume was high (only Avastin and Herceptin generated
more online hits), it was not as high as may have been suggested by sales. This could the result
of the unique status of Rituxan among the top 10 oncology medications. Rituxan is approved for
a range of conditions, including both blood cancers and non-cancer uses. As a consequence,
conversations about the drug may be the focus of more but smaller communities that cumulatively
lack the size of, for example, the breast cancer community.
But not all therapies are discussed in the same online outlets. While most online mentions of
medications occur in the context of digital news stories—where Avastin, Herceptin and Rituxan,
respectively, hold the top three slots—forums have a different breakdown, with Herceptin, Xeloda
and Gleevec as the most-discussed medications. Alimta, a lung cancer therapy, is the most cited of
the 10 medications on blogs.
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Volume of Mentions (Twitter)
TARCEVA
XELODA
VELCADE
ERBITUX
ALIMTA
ELOXATIN
GLEEVEC
HERCEPTIN
AVASTIN
RITUXAN

The Social
Oncology Project
NOTE ON
DATA SOURCES
http://w.cg/tsop13

The data in this report came from a variety of sources, indicated as applicable.
The bulk of the information was pulled from Sysomos and analyzed by the
W2O Group authors. The analysis was performed over the weeks of March
6 and 13, restricted to conversations in the United States and generally dealt
with one year of data.
Some select Twitter information, particularly pertaining to the #BCSM
discussion, came from Symplur.com.
Most of the data in “Section II: Use by Doctors” was generated from W2O
Group’s MDigitalLife database. That proprietary tool tracks matched Twitter
handles with physicians’ NPI (National Provider Identifier) numbers.
This serves two purposes: first, it verifies that the doctors in the database
are, indeed, validated physicians. Second, it also allows analysis not only
of tweets, but also data linked to the NPIN, such as specialty and location.
MDigitalLife is the first (and so far, the only) database tracking doctors’ “digital
footprint” and tethering it to an official registry. The dataset is in the process
of expanding beyond twitter (to include all digital properties owned by the
physician) and beyond the US, leveraging the physician registries in more
than 15 countries.
For more information on any of the content contained in this report,
please contact Brian Reid at breid@w2ogroup.com.
26 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Note on Data Sources

The Social Oncology Report 2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to The Social Oncology Report 2013

Similar to The Social Oncology Report 2013 (20)

More from W2O Group

More from W2O Group (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Social Oncology Report 2013