The Social Oncology Report 2013

THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY

PROJECT

Brian Reid withAshlyn 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 clich 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 appearedthats a rate of

64 manuscripts a day, every day.

Theres 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 cellsbreast cancer,

prostate cancer, lung cancer, leukemiabut 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 createdby scientific exchange or by the

news mediaas 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

channelsnews, 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. Thats 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, its 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 wasby a large marginthe 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

1,200,000140,000

1,000,000120,000

800,000100,000

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 individuals 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

05

00

10

00

15

00

20

00

25

00

Lung Cancer AwarenessMonth

Study on lung cancer

and marijuana use

Source: W2O/Sysomos

02

00

00

40

00

06

00

00

80

00

01

00

00

0


Source: W2O/Sysomos

Overall Mentions of Cancer


Mentions of Prostate Cancer

05

00

10

00

20

00

30

00 Prostate-related

news about Jerry Brown and Ian McKellan

ASCO-related conversations

Source: W2O/Sysomos



Mentions of Breast Cancer0

10

00

03

00

00

50

00

0

Breast Cancer AwarenessMonth

Angelina Jolieannounces

double mastectomy

Source: W2O/Sysomos


Mentions of Colon Cancer

05

00

10

00

15

00

20

00

ColonCancer

AwarenessMonth

Study on aspirin as colon cancer treatment

Source: W2O/Sysomos


Mentions of Blood Cancer

02

00

04

00

06

00

08

00

01

00

00

Football coach Chuck Pagano announces he has leukemia

Manti T'eo story, involving fictiuous girlfriend's leukemia death, breaks

Source: W2O/Sysomos

ASCO


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 isnt 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 conferences 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 coverageand 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 centers communication staff (the Mayo Clinic)

outranked both Forbes and The Times.

The lack of mainstream media among the top-tweeted links

demonstrates the fundamental reality of the new communications

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. Alexs 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 Medicines 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, its 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

groups together: an tweetup, held the evening before the conference begins, and an ASCO-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


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 modestsome 27,000 tweets out of the

millions of total tweets about cancerit 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

Me

nti

on

s o

f C

an

cer

Source: MDigital Life database of physician tweets

Breast Cancer

Aweness

Month

Mentions of Cancer

Source: MDigital Life database of physician tweets

Bre

as

t Ca

nce

r A

we

ne

ss

M

on

th

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

05

01

00

15

02

00

25

03

00

35

0

Prevention/Awareness

Diagnosis/Detection

Treatment

Research

Co

nv

ers

ati

on

To

pic

s

Cancer TypeSource: MDigital Life database of physician tweetsSource: 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 day2.6

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-Ketterings 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 inuence 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


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 Childrens 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 doesnt 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 pages 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 organizations 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 tweetchata 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. Thats

not what you see with #BCSM. ... We have a common goal

thats 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

Jennifera single advocate unaffiliated with any major

organizationthe ability to create a community and a platform

with minimal resources.

20 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Use by Patients and Advocates

Most Active #BCSM

ParticipantsMay 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)


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

4,00025,000

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, isnt

necessary correlated with sales) to differences in news flow. Still, its 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 storieswhere Avastin, Herceptin and Rituxan,

respectively, hold the top three slotsforums 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


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

Groups 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 [email protected].

26 THE SOCIAL ONCOLOGY PROJECT: Note on Data Sources

Health & Medicine

The Social Oncology Report 2013