Sex differences in health and disease: A review of biological sex differences relevant to cancer with a spotlight on glioma.

The influence of biological sex differences on human health and disease, while being increasingly recognized, has long been underappreciated and underexplored. While humans of all sexes are more alike than different, there is evidence for sex differences in the most basic aspects of human biology and these differences have consequences for the etiology and pathophysiology of many diseases. In a disease like cancer, these consequences manifest in the sex biases in incidence and outcome of many cancer types. The ability to deliver precise, targeted therapies to complex cancer cases is limited by our current understanding of the underlying sex differences. Gaining a better understanding of the implications and interplay of sex differences in diseases like cancer will thus be informative for clinical practice and biological research. Here we review the evidence for a broad array of biological sex differences in humans and discuss how these differences may relate to observed sex differences in various diseases, including many cancers and specifically glioblastoma. We focus on areas of human biology that play vital roles in healthy and disease states, including metabolism, development, hormones, and the immune system, and emphasize that the intersection of sex differences in these areas should not go overlooked. We further propose that mathematical approaches can be useful for exploring the extent to which sex differences affect disease outcomes and accounting for those in the development of therapeutic strategies.

Image-based metric of invasiveness predicts response to adjuvant temozolomide for primary glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Temozolomide (TMZ) has been the standard-of-care chemotherapy for glioblastoma (GBM) patients for more than a decade. Despite this long time in use, significant questions remain regarding how best to optimize TMZ therapy for individual patients. Understanding the relationship between TMZ response and factors such as number of adjuvant TMZ cycles, patient age, patient sex, and image-based tumor features, might help predict which GBM patients would benefit most from TMZ, particularly for those whose tumors lack O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a cohort of 90 newly-diagnosed GBM patients treated according to the standard of care, we examined the relationships between several patient and tumor characteristics and volumetric and survival outcomes during adjuvant chemotherapy. Volumetric changes in MR imaging abnormalities during adjuvant therapy were used to assess TMZ response. T1Gd volumetric response is associated with younger patient age, increased number of TMZ cycles, longer time to nadir volume, and decreased tumor invasiveness. Moreover, increased adjuvant TMZ cycles corresponded with improved volumetric response only among more nodular tumors, and this volumetric response was associated with improved survival outcomes. Finally, in a subcohort of patients with known MGMT methylation status, methylated tumors were more diffusely invasive than unmethylated tumors, suggesting the improved response in nodular tumors is not driven by a preponderance of MGMT methylated tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that less diffusely invasive tumors are associated with greater volumetric response to TMZ suggests patients with these tumors may benefit from additional adjuvant TMZ cycles, even for those without MGMT methylation.