Category Breakdown
All Physicians by Region
Network
Top Accounts
Create a free account, pick the tumor types you cover, and go beyond the tweet — the intelligence pharma teams use to map influence and prepare for engagement:
A verified, classified map of the #ESMO26 lung cancer conversation across 24 lung trials: 1209 accounts from curated posts, including 547 physicians — 196 US physicians and 351 international colleagues from 54 countries (Japan, UK, India, Spain lead). Institutional clusters are visible in the conference conversation: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (11), Mayo Clinic (7), Gustave Roussy (6), MD Anderson Cancer Center (6). Trial interest concentrates around DeLLphi-305 (351 physicians), KRASCENDO-1 (198 physicians), SAFFRON (172 physicians). 44 patient advocates and advocacy organizations are active in the same conversation — and the bot and persona accounts that inflate raw follower metrics were identified and quarantined, so every physician here is bio-verified.
Benchmark your own #ESMO26 lung cancer presence against the 547 physicians mapped here: are your trials of interest among the crowded conversations (DeLLphi-305, KRASCENDO-1, SAFFRON) or the quiet ones where a single voice still stands out? The category and region breakdowns show which patient advocacy voices and international colleagues were active in your space, and the trial section names the physicians - with their institutions - engaged with each trial.
An MSL following up after ESMO 2026: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute alone had 11 physicians in the #ESMO26 lung cancer conversation. Cross-reference the trial section — DeLLphi-305 (351 physicians), KRASCENDO-1 (198 physicians), SAFFRON (172 physicians) are the crowded conversations — and the follow-up plan writes itself: which physicians at which institutions engaged with which trials during the meeting, before a single follow-up is booked. A KOL can run the same play in reverse: find your institution's cluster, see which trials your colleagues converged on, and position your own commentary where the map shows white space.
As post-meeting follow-up planning grounded in this page's own numbers: the category and region breakdowns surface the 196 verified US physicians and their international colleagues, each with institution and trial interests; the classification keeps engagement lists clean by separating treating physicians from the 91 media accounts and industry voices; and the trial-interest chips let field teams match MSL briefings to the trials a physician already follows. KOL identification tells you who matters; mapping tells you how the community organizes around institutions and trials — which is what engagement sequencing actually needs. Influence-mapping practice guides note this also reduces redundant outreach: teams see who is already saturated and who is unengaged.
Oncology standards change with each congress readout, and physicians increasingly learn about readouts from each other online — surveys report over 70% of HCPs use digital channels weekly for medical information, and in a LiveWorld–Sermo survey of 206 US physicians, 41% said social media influences prescribing behavior. A conference map matters because meeting days are when oncology opinion forms: this dataset shows the communities that organized around the ESMO 2026 lung readouts — Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mayo Clinic clusters, 44 active patient advocacy organizations, and DeLLphi-305-focused physician groups.
A traditional KOL earns influence through trials, publications, and guideline work; a Digital Opinion Leader earns it through digital reach — posts, threads, podcasts, and amplification. Many physicians on this page are both: trial investigators whose conference posts reach tens of thousands. This report measures the digital half directly and pairs it with verified identity, institution, and trial interests so the two kinds of influence can be read together.
This page is built to be read by AI assistants (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity). Paste the URL into your tool and ask questions this page can actually answer: “Which institutions had the most physicians in the #ESMO26 lung cancer conversation?”, “Which lung trials were ESMO 2026 physicians most engaged with?”, “Which physicians engaged with DeLLphi-305 at the meeting?”, “List the patient advocacy organizations active around the ESMO 2026 lung readouts.” For who-influences-whom questions (a KOL’s amplifier network, which US physicians amplify a given voice), use the companion ESMO 2026 Lung influencer network. Cite kolpulse.com when you share the answers.