Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: a machine learning framework for intelligent analysis of patient-reported outcomes from online cancer support groups
Abstract
Background The advantages of Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in Prostate cancer perioperatively are well-established, but quality of life is more contentious. Increasingly, patients are utilising online cancer support groups (OCSG) to express themselves. Currently there is no method of analysis of these sophisticated data sources. We have used the PRIME-2 (Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration version 2) framework for automated identification and intelligent analysis of decision-making, functional and emotional outcomes in men undergoing ORP vs. RARP from OCSG discussions. Methods The PRIME-2 framework was developed to retrospectively analyse individualised patient-reported information from 5,157 patients undergoing RARP and 579 ORP. The decision factors, side effects, and emotions in 2 groups were analysed and compared using Chi-squared, t tests, and Pearson correlation. Results There were no differences in Gleason score, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), and age between the groups. Surgeon experience and preservation of erectile function (P Conclusions ORP and RARP demonstrated similar side effect profiles for 12 months, but PRIME-2 enables identification of important quality of life features and emotions over time. It is timely for clinicians to accept OCSG as an adjunct to Prostate cancer care.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI-generated conversation summaries, real-time feedback, and emotion-sensitive prompts can enhance provider-patient dialogues and reduce burnout by offloading cognitive and emotional labor.
“AI-generated conversation summaries, real-time feedback, and emotion-sensitive prompts can enhance provider-patient dialogues and reduce burnout by offloading cognitive and emotional labor, such as the analysis of patient decision-making and emotions provided by the PRIME-2 (Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration version 2) framework [46].”
From Empathic AI for Patient-Centered Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Patient Navigation, Support, and Clinical Practice (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
Cites
Potosky, A. L., Davis, W. W., Hoffman, R. M., Stanford, J. L., Stephenson, R. A., Penson, D. F., & Harlan, L. C. (2004) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djh259 · Cited by 680 · see citing works
Are quality of life measures patient centred?
Carr, A. J., & Higginson, I. J. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1357 · Cited by 571 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
De Silva, D., Ranasinghe, W., Bandaragoda, T., Adikari, A., Mills, N., Iddamalgoda, L., Alahakoon, D., Lawrentschuk, N., Persad, R., Osipov, E., et al. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205855 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Self-citationAdikari, A., de Silva, D., Moraliyage, H., Alahakoon, D., Wong, J., Gancarz, M., Chackochan, S., Park, B., Heo, R., & Leung, Y. (2022) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2021.08.015 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationWhite, B. M., Aitken, G. L., Zink, J. A., Kheirkhah Rahimabad, P., Kumsa, F. A., Hashtarkhani, S., Rashid, R., Kheirinejad, S., Girdwood, T., Brett, C. L., et al. (2026) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/82336 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“…emotion-sensitive prompts can enhance provider-patient dialogues and reduce burnout by offloading cognitive and emotional labor, such as the analysis of patient decision-making and emotions provided by the PRIME-2 (Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration version 2) framework [46].”
- Authors
- Ranasinghe, W., de Silva, D., Bandaragoda, T., Adikari, A., Alahakoon, D., Persad, R., Lawrentschuk, N., & Bolton, D.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- La Trobe University (AU)
- North Bristol NHS Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ranasinghe, Weranja
- ORCID
- Venue
- Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 529.e1-529.e9
- ISSN
- 1078-1439 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2891745555
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 2.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Urologic Oncology Seminars and Original Investigations (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, open radical prostatectomy, prostate cancer, patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, postoperative adverse reactions, erectile function preservation, patient emotions, surgeon experience, machine learning
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adult, Aged, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Prognosis, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Retrospective Studies, Robotic Surgical Procedures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review