Mathew Hall1, Vaishali A Krishnanandan2, Matthew C Cheung2, Natalie G Coburn3, Barbara Haas3, Kelvin K W Chan2,4, Michael J Raphael2. 1. Department of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Canadian Centre of Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether sex- and gender-based analyses and proper sex and gender terminology were used in oncology trials leading to regulatory drug approval. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Hematology/Oncology Approvals and Safety Notifications page was used to identify all anticancer therapies that received FDA approval between 2012 and 2019. The trials used to support FDA drug approval were collected along with all available supplemental tables and study protocols. Documents were reviewed to determine if there was a plan to analyze results according to sex and gender and to determine if consistent sex and gender terminology were used. RESULTS: We identified 128 randomized, controlled trials corresponding to a cancer medicine, which received FDA approval. No study specified how sex and gender were collected or analyzed. No study reported any information on the gender of participants. Sex and gender terminology were used inconsistently at least once in 76% (97 of 128) of studies. Among the 102 trials for nonsex-specific cancer sites, 89% (91 of 102) presented disaggregated survival outcome data by sex. No study presented disaggregated toxicity data by sex or gender. CONCLUSION: The majority of pivotal clinical trials in oncology fail to account for the important distinction between sex and gender and conflate sex and gender terminology. More rigor in designing clinical trials to include sex- and gender-based analyses and more care in using sex and gender terms in the cancer literature are needed. These efforts are essential to improve the reproducibility, generalizability, and inclusiveness of cancer research.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether sex- and gender-based analyses and proper sex and gender terminology were used in oncology trials leading to regulatory drug approval. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Hematology/Oncology Approvals and Safety Notifications page was used to identify all anticancer therapies that received FDA approval between 2012 and 2019. The trials used to support FDA drug approval were collected along with all available supplemental tables and study protocols. Documents were reviewed to determine if there was a plan to analyze results according to sex and gender and to determine if consistent sex and gender terminology were used. RESULTS: We identified 128 randomized, controlled trials corresponding to a cancer medicine, which received FDA approval. No study specified how sex and gender were collected or analyzed. No study reported any information on the gender of participants. Sex and gender terminology were used inconsistently at least once in 76% (97 of 128) of studies. Among the 102 trials for nonsex-specific cancer sites, 89% (91 of 102) presented disaggregated survival outcome data by sex. No study presented disaggregated toxicity data by sex or gender. CONCLUSION: The majority of pivotal clinical trials in oncology fail to account for the important distinction between sex and gender and conflate sex and gender terminology. More rigor in designing clinical trials to include sex- and gender-based analyses and more care in using sex and gender terms in the cancer literature are needed. These efforts are essential to improve the reproducibility, generalizability, and inclusiveness of cancer research.
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Julian A Sanchez; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Giang T Nguyen; B Lee Green; Peter A Kanetsky; Matthew B Schabath Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Adil H Haider; Eric B Schneider; Lisa M Kodadek; Rachel R Adler; Anju Ranjit; Maya Torain; Ryan Y Shields; Claire Snyder; Jeremiah D Schuur; Laura Vail; Danielle German; Susan Peterson; Brandyn D Lau Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Roxanne Pelletier; Nadia A Khan; Jafna Cox; Stella S Daskalopoulou; Mark J Eisenberg; Simon L Bacon; Kim L Lavoie; Kaberi Daskupta; Doreen Rabi; Karin H Humphries; Colleen M Norris; George Thanassoulis; Hassan Behlouli; Louise Pilote Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Fabio Conforti; Laura Pala; Vincenzo Bagnardi; Tommaso De Pas; Marco Martinetti; Giuseppe Viale; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Megan A Mullins; Phoenix A Matthews; Jesse J Plascak; Theresa A Hastert; Linda K Ko; Marquita S Gray; Yamilé Molina Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254