癌症研究中的性别差异:肺癌、黑色素瘤和结直肠癌前瞻性和回顾性研究的系统回顾。

IF 2.3 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Frontiers in global women's health Pub Date : 2024-11-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fgwh.2024.1445139
Maria Díaz Rosario, Camille A Vélez-Morell, Daniela V Martinez
{"title":"癌症研究中的性别差异:肺癌、黑色素瘤和结直肠癌前瞻性和回顾性研究的系统回顾。","authors":"Maria Díaz Rosario, Camille A Vélez-Morell, Daniela V Martinez","doi":"10.3389/fgwh.2024.1445139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>According to the latest Cancer Statistics, colorectal, lung, and melanoma are three of the most common cancers that affect both males and females. While males have consistently had a higher incidence and mortality rate in all three types of cancers, females have been shown to have better outcomes. Sex discrepancies in cancer research can impact the efficacy and effectiveness of novel drugs and diagnostic tools. Study results may not accurately represent how the treatment or diagnostic tool performs in the underrepresented sex. To comprehensively assess sex representation in top non-sex-specific cancer research, this systematic review aims to identify if there is equal representation of males and females in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We explored retrospective and prospective clinical studies published in Pubmed from 2014 to 2023 to identify possible sex discrepancies in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer. MeSH terms were employed to retrieve relevant studies for each cancer type (colorectal, lung, melanoma). MeSH terms used include \"lung cancer\", \"melanoma\", and \"colorectal cancer\", in combination with \"trials\", \"retrospective\", and \"prospective\". Extracted data included study characteristics (author, year of publication), study design (prospective or retrospective), sample size, and the number of male and female participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The complete study population consisted of 515,003 patients, of which 275,231 (53%) were males and 237,488 (46%) were females. Specifically, retrospective studies included a total of 302,974 patients with 163,473 (54%) of them identifying as male and 139,072 (46%) patients identifying as female. While prospective studies included a total of 212,029 patients with 111,758 (53%) of these being male and 98,416 (46%) being female. Overall, male representation in the studies included in this systematic review was higher than female representation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Disparities in representation were identified in colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma cancer studies underscoring the need for equitable inclusion of both sexes in cancer research to advance precision medicine and improve patient outcomes. Further exploration of the impact of sex, race, and socioeconomic status on study representation is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":73087,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in global women's health","volume":"5 ","pages":"1445139"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586390/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sex discrepancies in cancer research: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective investigations in lung, melanoma, and colorectal cancers.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Díaz Rosario, Camille A Vélez-Morell, Daniela V Martinez\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fgwh.2024.1445139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>According to the latest Cancer Statistics, colorectal, lung, and melanoma are three of the most common cancers that affect both males and females. While males have consistently had a higher incidence and mortality rate in all three types of cancers, females have been shown to have better outcomes. Sex discrepancies in cancer research can impact the efficacy and effectiveness of novel drugs and diagnostic tools. Study results may not accurately represent how the treatment or diagnostic tool performs in the underrepresented sex. To comprehensively assess sex representation in top non-sex-specific cancer research, this systematic review aims to identify if there is equal representation of males and females in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We explored retrospective and prospective clinical studies published in Pubmed from 2014 to 2023 to identify possible sex discrepancies in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer. MeSH terms were employed to retrieve relevant studies for each cancer type (colorectal, lung, melanoma). MeSH terms used include \\\"lung cancer\\\", \\\"melanoma\\\", and \\\"colorectal cancer\\\", in combination with \\\"trials\\\", \\\"retrospective\\\", and \\\"prospective\\\". Extracted data included study characteristics (author, year of publication), study design (prospective or retrospective), sample size, and the number of male and female participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The complete study population consisted of 515,003 patients, of which 275,231 (53%) were males and 237,488 (46%) were females. Specifically, retrospective studies included a total of 302,974 patients with 163,473 (54%) of them identifying as male and 139,072 (46%) patients identifying as female. While prospective studies included a total of 212,029 patients with 111,758 (53%) of these being male and 98,416 (46%) being female. Overall, male representation in the studies included in this systematic review was higher than female representation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Disparities in representation were identified in colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma cancer studies underscoring the need for equitable inclusion of both sexes in cancer research to advance precision medicine and improve patient outcomes. Further exploration of the impact of sex, race, and socioeconomic status on study representation is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in global women's health\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"1445139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586390/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in global women's health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2024.1445139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in global women's health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2024.1445139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:根据最新的癌症统计数据,结肠直肠癌、肺癌和黑色素瘤是男性和女性最常见的三种癌症。虽然男性在这三类癌症中的发病率和死亡率一直较高,但女性的治疗效果却更好。癌症研究中的性别差异会影响新型药物和诊断工具的疗效和有效性。研究结果可能无法准确反映治疗或诊断工具在代表性不足的性别中的表现。为了全面评估非性别特异性癌症顶级研究中的性别代表性,本系统性综述旨在确定结直肠癌、肺癌和黑色素瘤研究中的男女代表性是否平等:我们探讨了 2014 年至 2023 年发表在 Pubmed 上的回顾性和前瞻性临床研究,以确定结直肠癌、肺癌和黑色素瘤中可能存在的性别差异。采用 MeSH 术语检索每种癌症类型(结直肠癌、肺癌、黑色素瘤)的相关研究。使用的 MeSH 术语包括 "肺癌"、"黑色素瘤 "和 "结直肠癌",以及 "试验"、"回顾性 "和 "前瞻性"。提取的数据包括研究特征(作者、发表年份)、研究设计(前瞻性或回顾性)、样本量以及男女参与者人数:完整的研究人群包括 515 003 名患者,其中男性 275 231 人(53%),女性 237 488 人(46%)。具体来说,回顾性研究共包括 302,974 名患者,其中 163,473 名患者(54%)为男性,139,072 名患者(46%)为女性。而前瞻性研究共纳入 212,029 名患者,其中 111,758 人(53%)为男性,98,416 人(46%)为女性。总体而言,在本次系统性回顾所纳入的研究中,男性的比例高于女性:讨论:在结直肠癌、肺癌和黑色素瘤研究中发现了代表性的差异,这强调了将两性公平纳入癌症研究的必要性,以推动精准医学的发展并改善患者的预后。有必要进一步探讨性别、种族和社会经济地位对研究代表性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sex discrepancies in cancer research: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective investigations in lung, melanoma, and colorectal cancers.

Introduction: According to the latest Cancer Statistics, colorectal, lung, and melanoma are three of the most common cancers that affect both males and females. While males have consistently had a higher incidence and mortality rate in all three types of cancers, females have been shown to have better outcomes. Sex discrepancies in cancer research can impact the efficacy and effectiveness of novel drugs and diagnostic tools. Study results may not accurately represent how the treatment or diagnostic tool performs in the underrepresented sex. To comprehensively assess sex representation in top non-sex-specific cancer research, this systematic review aims to identify if there is equal representation of males and females in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer research.

Methods: We explored retrospective and prospective clinical studies published in Pubmed from 2014 to 2023 to identify possible sex discrepancies in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer. MeSH terms were employed to retrieve relevant studies for each cancer type (colorectal, lung, melanoma). MeSH terms used include "lung cancer", "melanoma", and "colorectal cancer", in combination with "trials", "retrospective", and "prospective". Extracted data included study characteristics (author, year of publication), study design (prospective or retrospective), sample size, and the number of male and female participants.

Results: The complete study population consisted of 515,003 patients, of which 275,231 (53%) were males and 237,488 (46%) were females. Specifically, retrospective studies included a total of 302,974 patients with 163,473 (54%) of them identifying as male and 139,072 (46%) patients identifying as female. While prospective studies included a total of 212,029 patients with 111,758 (53%) of these being male and 98,416 (46%) being female. Overall, male representation in the studies included in this systematic review was higher than female representation.

Discussion: Disparities in representation were identified in colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma cancer studies underscoring the need for equitable inclusion of both sexes in cancer research to advance precision medicine and improve patient outcomes. Further exploration of the impact of sex, race, and socioeconomic status on study representation is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing the impact of contraceptive use on reproductive cancer risk among women of reproductive age-a systematic review. Sex discrepancies in cancer research: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective investigations in lung, melanoma, and colorectal cancers. s-CAPE trauma recovery program: the need for a holistic, trauma- and violence-informed domestic violence framework. Insights into perceptions, responses, and challenges experienced by women and girls' survivors of sexual violence and their communities in rural Guinea, 2020. Safe limits on work hours for the nursing profession: a rapid evidence review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1