Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Performing Landscape Review and Linguistic Analysis for Curative Intent in Prostate Cancer (PC)
Speaker(s)
Krabbe LM1, Merseburger A2, Liew A3, Kurtyka K4, Panda O4, Dalechek D4, Heerdegen ACS5, Jain R5, De Solda F5, McCarthy SA6, Brookman-May SD7, Mundle SD6, Yu Ko W8, Efstathiou E9
1University of Münster Medical Center, Münster, Germany, 2University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Luebeck, Germany, 3Oxford PharmaGenesis Group Pty Ltd, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 4Oxford PharmaGenesis Inc, Newtown, PA, USA, 5Janssen Global Commercial Strategy Organization, Raritan, NJ, USA, 6Janssen Research & Development, Raritan, NJ, USA, 7Janssen Research & Development, Spring House, PA and Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany, Spring House, PA, USA, 8University of British Columbia Men's Health Research Program, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Emerging PC treatments have increased the possibility of achieving cure, even in high-risk disease. Stakeholders may define and perceive cure differently. We describe a landscape review and linguistic methodology investigating the concept of cure in PC.
METHODS: The methodology involved subject-matter experts (SMEs) and AI-powered tools: 1) SMEs selected cure-related keywords; 2) SMEs used Elicit, a semantic search tool, to identify contextual terms frequently used with keywords; 3) Keyword search extracted hits from 4 stakeholder platforms: published literature in MEDLINE (5 years), HCPs in Sermo (2 years), general public in Twitter/forums (27 months), and policymakers in Overton (5 years). NetBase Quid, a natural language processing tool, was used to perform linguistic analysis of hits, metadata, and sentiment about cure; 4) SMEs selected data subsets for each keyword and reviewed them for insights. Data were summarized quantitatively and qualitatively.
RESULTS: Estimated numbers of hits that 7 identified keywords returned across platforms were 12,429 (Cure), 6063 (Survivor), 1904 (Remission), 1179 (Survivorship), 432 (Curative Intent), 381 (No Evidence of Disease), 83 (Complete Remission). Most common keywords were Cure among general public (11,815 hits) and HCPs (224), Survivorship in literature (378), and Survivor among policymakers (378). All stakeholders discussed Cure primarily in early-stage PC. Insights from all 7 subsets showed stakeholders utilized various terms to describe the concept of cure: disease progression measurements (eg, prostate-specific antigen) were used along with Cure in literature, Cure and Survivor among general public, Cure Rates among HCPs, and Potential Cure and Survivor/Survivorship among policymakers when discussing curative-intent treatment. In the Cure-related subset, SMEs reviewed 2452 (general public), 232 (literature), 206 (HCPs), and 153 (policymakers) hits. Cure, Curative Intent, Survivorship, Remission, and Survivor were associated with positive sentiments.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined AI-assisted and human-led large-scale landscape review revealed different linguistic and contextual preferences across stakeholders in communicating about cure in early-stage PC.
Code
MSR150
Topic
Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics
Disease
Oncology, Urinary/Kidney Disorders