You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Editorial
Inclusive oncological trials and targeted treatments cannot ignore sex and gender
  1. Kathrin Heinrich1 and
  2. Sabine Oertelt-Prigione2,3
  1. 1Department of Medicine III and Comprehensive Cancer Center, LMU, Munchen, Germany
  2. 2Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  3. 3AG10: Sex- and Gender-Sensitive Medicine, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sabine Oertelt-Prigione; Sabine.Oertelt-Prigione{at}radboudumc.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000051

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Sex-sensitive and gender-sensitive medicine is a novel field that explores the impact of sex and gender on health and disease. Sex is defined by biological features such as genetic, hormonal, anatomical and physiological characteristics.1 Gender is a multidimensional attribute enacted in human social interaction and operationalised as gender identity, roles, norms and behaviours among others.1 2 Biological differences between male and female patients have implications for the prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment of various diseases,3 and gender impacts access to care and quality of life.4 For example, clinically relevant sex-specific differences in the presentation of disease5 or efficacy of drugs6 have been described in the field of cardiology. Pharmacological response and drug safety potentially differ in relation to sex7 and gender appears to impact the quality of life of patients with neurological diseases.8 Given this knowledge from other clinical fields, the need for greater consideration of sex and gender issues in oncology clinical trials is evident and should become a major focus in future research and publishing practice.

    Biological differences between male and female patients and the impact of gender on trajectories of care and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining growing attention. Biological sex influences the epidemiology of non-sex-dependent cancers, tumour biology, the metabolism of anticancer drugs and immune system activity.9 10 Several retrospective analyses suggest relevant differences in toxicity and, potentially, efficacy of anticancer drugs between male and female patients.11–13 Specifically, a retrospective analysis of over 20 000 patients (37.9% female and 62.1% male) from 202 oncological trials demonstrated an increased risk of severe symptomatic adverse events in female patients across different treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted treatments.14 These differences could be explained by many factors, one of them being the widespread practice of dosing of anticancer drugs according to body weight or body surface area (BSA).15 Fat-free body mass would be a far better estimate of the metabolically active body mass16 and, contrary to BSA, its calculation would take potential sex differences in body composition into account.

    Although recruitment practices for clinical studies are becoming more inclusive, significant underreporting of sex-specific differences in efficacy and tolerability against female participants persists. Currently, female patients appear adequately represented in oncological trials,17 but discrepancies are still evident for certain highly prevalent cancer types18 and for solid tumours in general.19 For example, although colorectal cancer occurs with almost equal frequency in male (55%) and female (45%) patients in Western societies,20 21 female patients only account for 30%–40% of trial participants in clinical trials investigating metastatic colorectal cancer.22–26 The reasons for these discrepancies are not clear and need to be further investigated.27 These clinically relevant inequalities prompted the European Society of Medical Oncology to publish a consensus paper addressing the need of implementing sex and gender in oncological research and practice in 201910 stating that ‘clinical trials of all phases need to ensure that the number of men and women enrolled is proportionate to the incidence of the cancer type. Sex should become a standard stratification factor in phase III studies’.10

    In addition to sex, gender is a still poorly investigated aspect in clinical care that could significantly impact the role and social function of patients with cancer.28 Although the investigation of gender is complicated by its multidimensional nature,29 variation over time and difference in salience for individual patients,30 researchers should not refrain from investigating its impact on PROMs and access to treatment. As the availability of methodological tools to investigate gender in the context of biomedicine increases,31 a systematic incorporation of this variable into oncological research is warranted to improve access and PROMs.

    In the era of precision oncology and individualised treatment, where clinical trials investigate small subgroups to maximise treatment efficacy while limiting toxicity, it appears paradoxical that sex and gender are not systematically taken into account. The currently available information about sex differences in oncology is mostly based on retrospective analyses, but as we move towards prospective studies some easily actionable steps could substantially improve the data quality and clinical value of the output. Trials should offer unequivocal definitions of the variables measured and the operationalisation of sex and gender.32 33 Trial recruitment should be designed to allow for appropriate sex-disaggregated analysis, which should be systematically reported, as requested by a growing number of scientific journals.34–36 This includes rigorous sex-sensitive trial design and transparent reporting of analytical approaches and their limitations,37 for example, in the case of limited sample sizes due to rare tumours. Sex-specific complementary subgroup analyses, or tests of interaction, should be carefully planned and registered before execution of the trial.38 Information about potential sex-dependent differences in efficacy and incidence of side effects should be made easily available.10 Gender should be considered in trial access, recruitment and in the long-term care of cancer survivors. Only the systematic consideration of sex and gender at all levels, from the molecular to the clinical and societal, will allow a truly comprehensive evidence-based precision oncology approach in the future.39

    Data availability statement

    No data are available.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Tannenbaum C,
      2. Ellis RP,
      3. Eyssel F, et al
      . Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering. Nature 2019;575:137–46. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Oertelt-Prigione S
      . Chapter 32 - the Operationalization of gender in medicine. In: Legato MJ, ed. Principles of Gender-Specific Medicine. Fourth Edition. Academic Press, 2023: 503–12.
    3. ↵
      1. Mauvais-Jarvis F,
      2. Bairey Merz N,
      3. Barnes PJ, et al
      . Sex and gender: modifiers of health, disease, and medicine. Lancet 2020;396:565–82. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31561-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Heise L,
      2. Greene ME,
      3. Opper N, et al
      . Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms: framing the challenges to health. Lancet 2019;393:2440–54. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30652-X
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Canto JG,
      2. Goldberg RJ,
      3. Hand MM, et al
      . Symptom presentation of women with acute coronary syndromes: myth vs reality. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2405–13. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.22.2405
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Tamargo J,
      2. Rosano G,
      3. Walther T, et al
      . Gender differences in the effects of cardiovascular drugs. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2017;3:163–82. doi:10.1093/ehjcvp/pvw042
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Franconi F,
      2. Campesi I
      . Sex and gender influences on pharmacological response: an overview. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2014;7:469–85. doi:10.1586/17512433.2014.922866
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Göttgens I,
      2. Darweesh SKL,
      3. Bloem BR, et al
      . The impact of multiple gender dimensions on health-related quality of life in persons with Parkinson’s disease: an exploratory study. J Neurol 2022;269:5963–72. doi:10.1007/s00415-022-11228-2
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      1. Klein SL,
      2. Flanagan KL
      . Sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol 2016;16:626–38. doi:10.1038/nri.2016.90
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Wagner AD,
      2. Oertelt-Prigione S,
      3. Adjei A, et al
      . Gender medicine and oncology: report and consensus of an ESMO workshop. Ann Oncol 2019;30:1914–24. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz414
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Özdemir BC,
      2. Csajka C,
      3. Dotto G-P, et al
      . Sex differences in efficacy and toxicity of systemic treatments: an undervalued issue in the era of precision oncology. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:2680–3. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.78.3290
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Conforti F,
      2. Pala L,
      3. Bagnardi V, et al
      . Cancer Immunotherapy efficacy and patients' sex: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:737–46. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30261-4
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Heinrich K,
      2. Modest DP,
      3. Ricard I, et al
      . Gender-dependent survival benefit from first-line Irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2021;147:128–39. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.01.025
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      1. Unger JM,
      2. Vaidya R,
      3. Albain KS, et al
      . Sex differences in risk of severe adverse events in patients receiving Immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or chemotherapy in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2022;40:1474–86. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.02377
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      1. Gurney H
      . How to calculate the dose of chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 2002;86:1297–302. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600139
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Janmahasatian S,
      2. Duffull SB,
      3. Ash S, et al
      . Quantification of lean bodyweight. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005;44:1051–65. doi:10.2165/00003088-200544100-00004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Labots G,
      2. Jones A,
      3. de Visser SJ, et al
      . Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2018;84:700–7. doi:10.1111/bcp.13497
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Duma N,
      2. Vera Aguilera J,
      3. Paludo J, et al
      . Representation of minorities and women in oncology clinical trials: review of the past 14 years. J Oncol Pract 2018;14:e1–10. doi:10.1200/JOP.2017.025288
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Mendis S,
      2. Anand S,
      3. Karasinska JM, et al
      . Sex representation in clinical trials associated with FDA cancer drug approvals differs between solid and hematologic malignancies. Oncologist 2021;26:107–14. doi:10.1002/onco.13534
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Ferlay J,
      2. Soerjomataram I,
      3. Dikshit R, et al
      . Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359–86. doi:10.1002/ijc.29210
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Ferlay J,
      2. Steliarova-Foucher E,
      3. Lortet-Tieulent J, et al
      . Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:1374–403. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Xu R-H,
      2. Muro K,
      3. Morita S, et al
      . Modified XELIRI (Capecitabine plus Irinotecan) versus FOLFIRI (Leucovorin, fluorouracil, and Irinotecan), both either with or without Bevacizumab, as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (AXEPT): a Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:660–71. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30140-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Ducreux M,
      2. Malka D,
      3. Mendiboure J, et al
      . Sequential versus combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (FFCD 2000-05): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:1032–44. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70199-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Cunningham D,
      2. Lang I,
      3. Marcuello E, et al
      . Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine versus Capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:1077–85. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70154-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Cremolini C,
      2. Loupakis F,
      3. Antoniotti C, et al
      . FOLFOXIRI plus Bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI plus Bevacizumab as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: updated overall survival and molecular subgroup analyses of the open-label, phase 3 TRIBE study. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:1306–15. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00122-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Heinemann V,
      2. von Weikersthal LF,
      3. Decker T, et al
      . FOLFIRI plus Cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus Bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:1065–75. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70330-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Leslie K,
      2. Martin C,
      3. Myles PS, et al
      . Inclusion, characteristics, and outcomes of male and female participants in large International perioperative studies. Br J Anaesth 2022;129:336–45. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2022.05.019
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      1. Oertelt-Prigione S,
      2. de Rooij BH,
      3. Mols F, et al
      . Sex-differences in symptoms and functioning in >5000 cancer survivors: results from the PROFILES Registry. Eur J Cancer 2021;156:24–34. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.07.019
      OpenUrl
    29. ↵
      1. Göttgens I,
      2. Oertelt-Prigione S
      . Moving beyond gender identity: the need for Contextualization in gender-sensitive medical research. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2023;24. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100548
    30. ↵
      1. Göttgens I,
      2. Modderkolk L,
      3. Jansen C, et al
      . The Salience of gender in the illness experiences and care preferences of people with Parkinson’s disease. Soc Sci Med 2023;320. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115757
    31. ↵
      1. Horstmann S,
      2. Schmechel C,
      3. Palm K, et al
      . The Operationalisation of sex and gender in quantitative health-related research: a Scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19. doi:10.3390/ijerph19127493
    32. ↵
      1. Statistics ABo
      . Standard for sex, gender, variations of sex characteristics and sexual orientation variables; 2023. Available: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/standard-sex-gender-variations-sex-characteristics-and-sexual-orientation-variables/latest-release
    33. ↵
      1. Stanford
      . Gendered innovations in science; 2023. Available: https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu
    34. ↵
      1. Docherty JR,
      2. Stanford SC,
      3. Panattieri RA, et al
      . Sex: a change in our guidelines to authors to ensure that this is no longer an ignored experimental variable. Br J Pharmacol 2019;176:4081–6. doi:10.1111/bph.14761
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      Nature journals raise the bar on sex and gender reporting in research. Nature 2022;605:396. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-01218-9
      OpenUrl
    36. ↵
      1. Schiebinger L,
      2. Leopold SS,
      3. Miller VM
      . Editorial policies for sex and gender analysis. Lancet 2016;388:2841–2. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32392-3
      OpenUrl
    37. ↵
      1. Assmann SF,
      2. Pocock SJ,
      3. Enos LE, et al
      . Subgroup analysis and other (Mis)Uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000;355:1064–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02039-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Hopewell S,
      3. Schulz KF, et al
      . CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2012;10:28–55. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Sapir-Pichhadze R,
      2. Oertelt-Prigione S
      . P3(2): a Sex- and gender-sensitive model for evidence-based precision medicine: from knowledge generation to implementation in the field of kidney transplantation. Kidney Int 2023;103:674–85. doi:10.1016/j.kint.2022.12.026
      OpenUrl

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @smoertelt

    • Contributors KH and SO-P contributed equally to this manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.