» Articles » PMID: 32960478

Sex Representation in Clinical Trials Associated with FDA Cancer Drug Approvals Differs Between Solid and Hematologic Malignancies

Overview
Journal Oncologist
Specialty Oncology
Date 2020 Sep 22
PMID 32960478
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Proportionate female representation in health research is necessary for scientific rigor and health equity. We aimed to assess the representation of women in clinical trials leading to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals.

Materials And Methods: Trials supporting FDA cancer drug approvals between July 2008 and June 2018 were sourced from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. The ratio of female to male trial enrollment was compared with cancer incidence and mortality in the U.S. using International Agency for Research on Cancer data. Reproductive tract and breast cancers were excluded. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing trial enrollment with population incidence and mortality were calculated.

Results: A total of 186 trials leading to 170 FDA cancer drug approvals showed slight female underrepresentation compared with overall cancer incidence in the U.S. (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98, p < .0001). Female enrollment for drugs approved between 2008-2013 and 2014-2018 was unchanged (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.05, p = .25). There was slight female underrepresentation in hematological trials (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.998; p = .040 for leukemia; OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.997; p = .040 for lymphoma) and significant female underrepresentation in colorectal (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76; p < .0001), pancreas (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; p = .0004), lung (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80; p < .0001), kidney (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.67; p < .0001), and thyroid cancer trials (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.28; p < .0001) compared with U.S. incidence.

Conclusion: Female underrepresentation has persisted within solid organ tumor trials but is less notable in hematologic trials. Additional work is required to identify drivers of such disparity.

Implications For Practice: Adequate gender representation in clinical trials is a matter of health equity. This study demonstrates that women remain underrepresented in trials across hematological and solid organ trials compared with cancer incidence and mortality in women, with the disparity worse in a number of solid organ tumor types. There are thus still significant improvements to be made regarding adequate representation of women in trials. Studies exploring the reasons for ongoing disparity in gender representation are warranted to help clinicians to rectify this.

Citing Articles

Inclusive oncological trials and targeted treatments cannot ignore sex and gender.

Heinrich K, Oertelt-Prigione S BMJ Oncol. 2025; 2(1):e000051.

PMID: 39886518 PMC: 11203085. DOI: 10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000051.


Harnessing policy to promote inclusive medical product evidence: development of a reference standard and structured audit of clinical trial diversity policies.

Miller J, Pelletiers W, Suttiratana S, Mensah M, Schwartz J, Ramachandran R BMJ Med. 2024; 3(1):e000920.

PMID: 39175919 PMC: 11340651. DOI: 10.1136/bmjmed-2024-000920.


Participant characteristics and exclusion from phase 3/4 industry funded trials of chronic medical conditions: meta-analysis of individual participant level data.

Lees J, Crowther J, Hanlon P, Butterly E, Wild S, Mair F BMJ Med. 2024; 3(1):e000732.

PMID: 38737200 PMC: 11085787. DOI: 10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000732.


Outcome differences by sex in oncology clinical trials.

Kammula A, Schaffer A, Rajagopal P, Kurzrock R, Ruppin E Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):2608.

PMID: 38521835 PMC: 10960820. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-46945-x.


Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.

Li V, Alibhai S, Noel K, Fazelzad R, Haase K, Mariano C BMJ Open. 2024; 14(1):e074191.

PMID: 38245013 PMC: 10807002. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074191.


References
1.
Ozdemir B, Csajka C, Dotto G, Wagner A . Sex Differences in Efficacy and Toxicity of Systemic Treatments: An Undervalued Issue in the Era of Precision Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36(26):2680-2683. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.3290. View

2.
. Investigational new drug applications and new drug applications--FDA. Final rule. Fed Regist. 1998; 63(28):6854-62. View

3.
Mungan N, Kiemeney L, van Dijck J, van der Poel H, Witjes J . Gender differences in stage distribution of bladder cancer. Urology. 2000; 55(3):368-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00481-1. View

4.
Mathew I, Mathew A . Rising Thyroid Cancer Incidence in Southern India: An Epidemic of Overdiagnosis?. J Endocr Soc. 2017; 1(5):480-487. PMC: 5686600. DOI: 10.1210/js.2017-00097. View

5.
Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65(1):5-29. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21254. View