RESUMO
We analyzed the inclusion of sex and/or gender (S/G) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) clinical studies, through inspecting ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) and the mention of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) on a specific subgroup, namely oral cavity, larynx and oropharynx. Only 5% of HNC studies mention S/G as a planned analytical variable. Proportionally more observational studies treated S/G as an analytical variable than interventional studies (10% vs 5%, P-value ≤ 0.001), 8% of studies that mentioned S/G involved more than 100 subjects while 4% less than 100 (P-value ≤ 0.001). In randomized protocols, S/G was mentioned more in studies with a planned sample of more than 100 patients and including HPV status (P-value < 0.05). Small controlled studies have lower mention of S/G as an analytical variable than uncontrolled studies (4% and 10%, respectively among studies with less than 100 subjects). Significantly greater mention of S/G as an analytical variable is observed in controlled and randomized studies with a sample size greater than 100 subjects. HPV was mentioned in only 18% of oral cavity-larynx-oropharynx studies. Interventional studies do not regularly account for S/G during HNC study design. Thus, although fundamental, in studies concerning HNC the S/G variable is often not considered. In trials published in scientific journals (P-value = 0.01) and in more recent clinical trials (P-value = 0.002), S/G is taken more into account suggesting an increasing awareness on its importance. However, the need to systematically include S/G in study design clearly emerges, to better highlight sex-related differences in disease incidence and prognosis and best imbue science and medicine with the proper biological and cultural differences.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Over the last decades, the incidence of melanoma has been steadily growing, with 4.2% of the population worldwide affected by cutaneous melanoma (CM) in 2020 and with a higher incidence and mortality in men than in women. We investigated both the risk factors for CM development and the prognostic and predictive factors for survival, stratifying for both sex and gender. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies indexed in PUB-MED, EMBASE, and Scopus until 4 February 2021. We included reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses investigating differences between women and men in CM risk factors and in prognostic and predictive factors for CM survival. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-four studies were included, and relevant data extracted. Of these, 13 studies concerned potential risk factors, six concerned predictive factors, and five addressed prognostic factors of melanoma. DISCUSSION: The systematic review revealed no significant differences in genetic predisposition to CM between males and females, while there appear to be several gender disparities regarding CM risk factors, partly attributable to different lifestyles and behavioral habits between men and women. There is currently no clear evidence of whether the mutational landscapes of CM differ by sex/gender. Prognosis is justified by a complex combination of phenotypes and immune functions, while reported differences between genders in predicting the effectiveness of new treatments are inconsistent. Overall, the results emerging from the literature reveal the importance of considering the sex/gender variable in all studies and pave the way for including it towards precision medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Men and women differ genetically, biologically, and by social construct. Our systematic review shows that, although fundamental, the variable sex/gender is not among the ones collected and analyzed.