Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Patient-Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration (PRIME) Framework for Investigating Emotions and Other Factors of Prostate Cancer Patients with Low Intermediate Risk Based on Online Cancer Support Group Discussions

  • Urologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to use the Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration (PRIME) framework, a novel ensemble of machine-learning and deep-learning algorithms, to extract, analyze, and correlate self-reported information from Online Cancer Support Groups (OCSG) by patients (and partners of patients) with low intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and active surveillance (AS), and to investigate its efficacy in quality-of-life (QoL) and emotion measures.

Methods

From patient-reported information on 10 OCSG, the PRIME framework automatically filtered and extracted conversations on low intermediate-risk PCa with active user participation. Side effects as well as emotional and QoL outcomes for 6084 patients were analyzed.

Results

Side-effect profiles differed between the methods analyzed, with men after RP having more urinary and sexual side effects and men after EBRT having more bowel symptoms. Key findings from the analysis of emotional expressions showed that PCa patients younger than 40 years expressed significantly high positive and negative emotions compared with other age groups, that partners of patients expressed more negative emotions than the patients, and that selected cohorts (< 40 years, > 70 years, partners of patients) have frequently used the same terms to express their emotions, which is indicative of QoL issues specific to those cohorts.

Conclusion

Despite recent advances in patient-centerd care, patient emotions are largely overlooked, especially in younger men with a diagnosis of PCa and their partners. The authors present a novel approach, the PRIME framework, to extract, analyze, and correlate key patient factors. This framework improves understanding of QoL and identifies low intermediate-risk PCa patients who require additional support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF, et al. Why do men choose one treatment over another? Cancer. 2006;106:1865–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1425–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen RC, Basak R, Meyer A-M, et al. Association between choice of radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance and patient-reported quality of life among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2017;317:1141–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ, et al. Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. JAMA. 2017;317:1126–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowling A. What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health-related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1447–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carr AJ, Higginson IJ. Are quality-of-life measures patient-centred? BMJ Clin Res Ed. 2001;322:1357–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carr AJ, Gibson B, Robinson PG. Measuring quality of life: Is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? BMJ Clin Res Ed. 2001;322:1240–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Seale C, Charteris-Black J, MacFarlane A, McPherson A. Interviews and internet forums: a comparison of two sources of qualitative data. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:595–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. White M, Dorman SM. Receiving social support online: implications for health education. Health Educ Res. 2001;16:693–707.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barak A, Boniel-Nissim M, Suler J. Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Comput Hum Behav. 2008;24:1867–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murdoch TB, Detsky AS. The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA. 2013;309:1351–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huber J, Ihrig A, Peters T, et al. Decision making in localized prostate cancer: lessons learned from an online support group. BJU Int. 2011;107:1570–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gooden RJ, Winefield HR. Breast and prostate cancer online discussion boards. J Health Psychol. 2007;12:103–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghani KR, Zheng K, Wei JT, Friedman CP. Harnessing big data for health care and research: are urologists ready? Eur Urol. 2014;66:975–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yim W, Yetisgen M, Harris WP, Kwan SW. Natural language processing in oncology: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ranasinghe W, Bandaragoda T, De Silva D, Alahakoon D. A novel framework for automated, intelligent extraction, and analysis of online support group discussions for cancer-related outcomes. BJU Int. 2017;120(Suppl 3):59–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Agrawal R, Gupta A, Sarawagi S. Modeling multidimensional databases. In: Proceedings 13th International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press; 1997. pp. 232–43.

  18. Kim MY, Xu Y, Zaiane O, Goebel R. Patient information extraction in noisy tele-health texts. In: Proceedings—2013 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, IEEE BIBM 2013. IEEE; 2013:326–329.

  19. Zeng QT, Tse T. Exploring and developing consumer health vocabularies. J Am Med Informat Assoc. 2006;13:24–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Keselman A, Smith CA, Divita G, et al. Consumer health concepts that do not map to the UMLS: where do they fit? J Am Med Informat Assoc. 2008;15:496–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Oh S. The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing information, knowledge, and experiences in online environments. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech. 2012;63:543–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bar-Lev S. “We are here to give you emotional support”: performing emotions in an online HIV/AIDS support group. Qual Health Res. 2008;18:509–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Esuli A, Sebastiani F, Moruzzi VG. SentiWordNet 3.0: an enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10). Vol 10. 2010:2200–2204.

  24. Scherer KR. What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Soc Sci Inform. 2005;44:695–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. D’Amico A, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wong LM, Tang V, Peters J, Costello A, Corcoran N. Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort. BJU Int. 2016;117:82–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown B, Young J, Kneebone AB, Brooks AJ, Dominello A, Haines M. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs towards management of men with locally advanced prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: an Australian survey of urologists. BJU Int. 2016;117:35–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Evans SM, Nag N, Roder D, et al. Development of an International Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. BJU Int. 2016;117:60–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mosher CE, Danoff-Burg S. A review of age differences in psychological adjustment to breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2005;23:101–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Compas BE, Stoll MF, Thomsen AH, Oppedisano G, Epping‐Jordan JE, Krag DN. Adjustment to breast cancer: age‐related differences in coping and emotional distress. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999;54:195–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blank TO, Bellizzi KM. A gerontologic perspective on cancer and aging. Cancer. 2008;112(11 Suppl):2569–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Manne S, Ostroff J, Winkel G, Goldstein L, Fox K, Grana G. Posttraumatic growth after breast cancer: patient, partner, and couple perspectives. Psychosom Med. 2004;66:442–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pudrovska T. What makes you stronger: age and cohort differences in personal growth after cancer. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51:260–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kring AM, Gordon AH. Sex differences in emotion: expression, experience, and physiology. J Person Soc Psychol. 1998;74:686–703.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Seale C. Gender accommodation in online cancer support groups. Health London Engl 1997. 2006;10:345–60.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Given BA, Given CW, Kozachik S (2001) Family support in advanced cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 51:213–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Northouse LL, Mood DW, Montie JE, et al. Living with prostate cancer: patients’ and spouses’ psychosocial status and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4171–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

There are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the human research ethics committee of La Trobe University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Centre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Tharindu Bandaragoda BSc, MPhil, Weranja Ranasinghe MBChB, MRCSED, PhD, Achini Adikari BSc, Daswin de Silva BSc, PhD & Damminda Alahakoon BSc, PhD

  2. Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia

    Weranja Ranasinghe MBChB, MRCSED, PhD, Nathan Lawrentschuk MBBS, PhD, FRACS & Damien Bolton MD, MBBS, BA, FRACS, FRCS

  3. North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England, UK

    Raj Persad ChM, FRCS (Eng), FRCS (Urol), FEBU

Authors
  1. Tharindu Bandaragoda BSc, MPhil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Weranja Ranasinghe MBChB, MRCSED, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Achini Adikari BSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daswin de Silva BSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nathan Lawrentschuk MBBS, PhD, FRACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Damminda Alahakoon BSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Raj Persad ChM, FRCS (Eng), FRCS (Urol), FEBU
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Damien Bolton MD, MBBS, BA, FRACS, FRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weranja Ranasinghe MBChB, MRCSED, PhD.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 242 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 13 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

To assess for any variabilities in our study cohort, we compared the characteristics and findings of our study population with those of the PROTECT study cohort 2 (Table S1). Our cohort had only a very small proportion of active surveillance (AS) patients compared with the PROTECT study cohort.2 However, the other characteristics and side-effect profiles of the studies were similar (Table S1).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bandaragoda, T., Ranasinghe, W., Adikari, A. et al. The Patient-Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration (PRIME) Framework for Investigating Emotions and Other Factors of Prostate Cancer Patients with Low Intermediate Risk Based on Online Cancer Support Group Discussions. Ann Surg Oncol 25, 1737–1745 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6372-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6372-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation