Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec 11:13:1301973.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1301973. eCollection 2023.

Overview and characterization of penile cancer content across social media platforms

Ruben Alejandro Ortiz-Guerra  1 , Salvador Jaime-Casas  1 , Bertha Alejandra Martinez-Cannon  1 , Jose C Ariza-Avila  2 , Ana P González-Morales  2 , Andrea Bardan-Duarte  2 , Yuly A Remolina-Bonilla  1 , Philippe E Spiess  3 , Maria T Bourlon  1
Affiliations

Overview and characterization of penile cancer content across social media platforms

Ruben Alejandro Ortiz-Guerra et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Social media platforms (SMP) are an emerging resource that allows physicians, patients, and families to converse on cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. We aimed to characterize penile cancer (PC) content shared on SMP.

Methods: We searched PC posts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram from July 1st, 2021, through June 30th, 2022. Two independent, blinded reviewers analyzed the hashtags: #PenileCancer, #PenileCancerAwareness, and #PenileNeoplasm. Descriptive statistics were used for posts characterization, Pearson´s correlation coefficient for associations, and Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient for inter-rater agreement rate.

Results: A total of 791 posts were analyzed, with Twitter accounting for 52%, Facebook for 12.2%, and Instagram for 35.5%, and. Most posts originated from high-income countries, such as the United Kingdom (48.8%). We found no correlation between the number of posts with PC incidence (p = 0.64) or users on SMP (p = 0.27). Most accounts were classified as "support and awareness communities" (43.6%) and "physicians and clinical researchers" (38.2%). Urology was the most common medical specialty to post (60.9%), followed by oncology (11.3%). Most posts were classified as "prevention and awareness for users" (45.1%). Global inter-reviewer agreement rate was almost perfect (k=0.95; p ≤ 0.01). On Twitter, "physicians and clinical researchers" shared more content on "treatment updates and medical papers published in medical journals," while on Facebook and Instagram, "support and awareness communities" focused on "personal and support comments."

Conclusion: Overall, the number of PC posts was low compared to other neoplasms across the SMP evaluated in this study. "Physicians and clinical researchers" shared more content on Twitter, while "support and awareness communities" on Facebook and Instagram. Encouraging the use of a common SMP among the medical community and general users could lead to a more effective communication between physicians, patients, and support groups, and to increased awareness of PC.

Keywords: content; penile cancer; platforms; posts; social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MTB declares potentially relevant relationships concerning travel grants, advisory boards, consulting fees, and honoraria for speaking with Pfizer, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Ipsen, Bayer, EISAI and Novartis. YARB declares potentially relevant relationships concerning travel grants with Bristol Myers Squibb. PES declares leadership roles including President of Global Society of Rare GU Tumors, NCCN Vice Chair of Bladder and Penile Cancer Panel, and member of ASCO/EAU panel. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
World map distribution of penile cancer posts.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall accounts categories.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Interactions and engagement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Douglawi A, Masterson TA. Penile cancer epidemiology and risk factors. Curr Opin Urol (2019) 29:145–9. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000581 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ornellas AA. Management of penile cancer. J Surg Oncol (2008) 97:199–200. doi: 10.1002/jso.20893 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Larke NL, Thomas SL, dos Santos Silva I, Weiss HA. Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control (2011) 22:1097–110. doi: 10.1007/s10552-011-9785-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olesen TB, Sand FL, Rasmussen CL, Albieri V, Toft BG, Norrild B, et al. . Prevalence of human papillomavirus DNA and p16INK4a in penile cancer and penile intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol (2019) 20:145–58. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30682-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heyns CF, Mendoza-Valdés A, Pompeo ACL. Diagnosis and staging of penile cancer. Urology (2010) 76:S15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.002 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources