IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v15y2024i1d10.1038_s41467-024-46945-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcome differences by sex in oncology clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Ashwin V. Kammula

    (National Cancer Institute)

  • Alejandro A. Schäffer

    (National Cancer Institute)

  • Padma Sheila Rajagopal

    (National Cancer Institute
    National Cancer Institute)

  • Razelle Kurzrock

    (WI 53226 and University of Nebraska)

  • Eytan Ruppin

    (National Cancer Institute)

Abstract

Identifying sex differences in outcomes and toxicity between males and females in oncology clinical trials is important and has also been mandated by National Institutes of Health policies. Here we analyze the Trialtrove database, finding that, strikingly, only 472/89,221 oncology clinical trials (0.5%) had curated post-treatment sex comparisons. Among 288 trials with comparisons of survival, outcome, or response, 16% report males having statistically significant better survival outcome or response, while 42% reported significantly better survival outcome or response for females. The strongest differences are in trials of EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer and rituximab in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (both favoring females). Among 44 trials with side effect comparisons, more trials report significantly lesser side effects in males (N = 22) than in females (N = 13). Thus, while statistical comparisons between sexes in oncology trials are rarely reported, important differences in outcome and toxicity exist. These considerable outcome and toxicity differences highlight the need for reporting sex differences more thoroughly going forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashwin V. Kammula & Alejandro A. Schäffer & Padma Sheila Rajagopal & Razelle Kurzrock & Eytan Ruppin, 2024. "Outcome differences by sex in oncology clinical trials," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-46945-x
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-46945-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46945-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-024-46945-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Youqiong Ye & Ying Jing & Liang Li & Gordon B. Mills & Lixia Diao & Hong Liu & Leng Han, 2020. "Sex-associated molecular differences for cancer immunotherapy," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Janine A. Clayton & Francis S. Collins, 2014. "Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies," Nature, Nature, vol. 509(7500), pages 282-283, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guo Zhao & Yuning Wang & Shuhang Wang & Ning Li, 2024. "Reporting outcome comparisons by sex in oncology clinical trials," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-3, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. April Schweinhart & Janine Austin Clayton, 2018. "Reversing the Trends toward Shorter Lives and Poorer Health for U.S. Women: A Call for Innovative Interdisciplinary Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Mei Luo & Lin Ye & Ruimin Chang & Youqiong Ye & Zhao Zhang & Chunjie Liu & Shengli Li & Ying Jing & Hang Ruan & Guanxiong Zhang & Yi He & Yaoming Liu & Yu Xue & Xiang Chen & An-Yuan Guo & Hong Liu & L, 2022. "Multi-omics characterization of autophagy-related molecular features for therapeutic targeting of autophagy," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Jiang, Xuan, 2021. "Women in STEM: Ability, preference, and value," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Jiang, Xuan, 2018. "Planting the Seeds for Success: Why Women in STEM Do Not Stick in the Field," MPRA Paper 89650, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Andrew T Marshall & Angela T Liu & Niall P Murphy & Nigel T Maidment & Sean B Ostlund, 2017. "Sex-specific enhancement of palatability-driven feeding in adolescent rats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, July.
    6. Goulas, Sofoklis & Griselda, Silvia & Megalokonomou, Rigissa, 2020. "Comparative Advantage and Gender Gap in STEM," IZA Discussion Papers 13313, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Sarah Bach & Melissa M Morrow & Kristin D Zhao & Richard E Hughes, 2015. "Sex Distribution of Study Samples Reported in American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting Abstracts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-5, March.
    8. Charlotte Douglas & Valdone Maciulyte & Jasmin Zohren & Daniel M. Snell & Shantha K. Mahadevaiah & Obah A. Ojarikre & Peter J. I. Ellis & James M. A. Turner, 2021. "CRISPR-Cas9 effectors facilitate generation of single-sex litters and sex-specific phenotypes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Rebecca K. Rechlin & Tallinn F. L. Splinter & Travis E. Hodges & Arianne Y. Albert & Liisa A. M. Galea, 2022. "An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Marek A. Motyka & Ahmed Al-Imam & Aneta Haligowska & Michał Michalak, 2022. "Helping Women Suffering from Drug Addiction: Needs, Barriers, and Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Gillian L Currie & Helena N Angel-Scott & Lesley Colvin & Fala Cramond & Kaitlyn Hair & Laila Khandoker & Jing Liao & Malcolm Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Rosie Morland & Nicki Sherratt & Robert Stewart, 2019. "Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-34, May.
    12. Takuji Usui & Malcolm R Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Alistair M Senior & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2021. "Meta-analysis of variation suggests that embracing variability improves both replicability and generalizability in preclinical research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-20, May.
    13. Lori van den Hurk & Sarah Hiltner & Sabine Oertelt-Prigione, 2022. "Operationalization and Reporting Practices in Manuscripts Addressing Gender Differences in Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Bibliographical Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    14. Laura A. B. Wilson & Susanne R. K. Zajitschek & Malgorzata Lagisz & Jeremy Mason & Hamed Haselimashhadi & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2022. "Sex differences in allometry for phenotypic traits in mice indicate that females are not scaled males," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Noriko Itoh & Yuichiro Itoh & Cassandra E. Meyer & Timothy Takazo Suen & Diego Cortez-Delgado & Michelle Rivera Lomeli & Sophia Wendin & Sri Sanjana Somepalli & Lisa C. Golden & Allan MacKenzie-Graham, 2023. "Estrogen receptor beta in astrocytes modulates cognitive function in mid-age female mice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Lee, Katharine M.N. & Rushovich, Tamara & Gompers, Annika & Boulicault, Marion & Worthington, Steven & Lockhart, Jeffrey W. & Richardson, Sarah S., 2023. "A Gender Hypothesis of sex disparities in adverse drug events," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-46945-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.