Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40153220›Full record

ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2025

Sex-related differences in the efficacy and toxicity of cancer treatments.

Ana Santaballa Bertrán, José Antonio Marcos Rodríguez, Ana Cardeña-Gutiérrez, Virginia Martinez-Callejo, Oliver Higuera, Beatriz Bernardez, Maria-Estela Moreno-Martínez, Margarita Majem

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ana Santaballa Bertrán *Department of Medical Oncology, La Fe University Hospital, IISLaFe, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7763-320X
José Antonio Marcos Rodríguez *Oncology Pharmacy Unit, Pharmacy Service, Virgen Macarena University Hospital, Sevilla, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-1062-434X
Ana Cardeña-GutiérrezDepartment of Medical Oncology, Nuestra Señora de Candelaria University Hospital, Carretera General del Rosario, 145, 38010, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. a.cardenna@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5972-8651
Virginia Martinez-CallejoOncology Pharmacy Unit, Pharmacy Service, Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital, Avda Marqués de Valdecilla, S/N 39008, Santander, Spain. virginia.mcallejo@scsalud.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5364-6077
Oliver HigueraDepartment of Medical Oncology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6807-4511
Beatriz BernardezDepartament of Medicine and Pharmacology Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6579-4903
Maria-Estela Moreno-Martínez *Pharmacy Department, Santa Creu I Sant Pau Hospital, IIB Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6752-873X
Margarita Majem *Department of Medical Oncology, Santa Creu I Sant Pau Hospital, IIB Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9919-7485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differences between the biological sexes have long been observed in cancer incidence and prevalence, and in treatment outcomes including efficacy and toxicity. Ideally, there should be sufficient information to improve the individualization of cancer treatment by incorporating sex into treatment decisions. Necessary information should include: the nature and source of these differences; whether inherent to the specific cancer (such as molecular profiles, metabolic behaviors, and immune responses); the pathophysiological mechanisms of the specific cancer; or the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of different cancer drugs. The influence of gender, which is defined as the sociocultural construct that determines societal norms for males and females, should also be included in personalized decision-making. This review aimed to describe the current evidence on the impact of sex and gender on treatment effects, outcomes, and toxicity profiles in cancer patients. Data for the influence of gender were negligible, whereas clinical studies and meta-analyses in different cancer types have identified differences between males and females in the effectiveness on survival outcomes of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiotherapy. Similarly, toxicity profiles of different cancer treatments varied between sexes. Based on these observed differences, it seems clear that sex should be included as an important variable when individualizing treatment; however, more research into sex- and gender-related differences in cancer treatment efficacy and toxicity, and the causes for these differences, is required before this can be fully incorporated into individualized treatment programs in real-world clinical practice.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsSex CharacteristicsFemaleHumansImmunotherapyMaleMolecular Targeted TherapyRadiotherapySex FactorsTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic agentsCancerRadiotherapySexSurvivalToxicity

Identifiers

PMID40153220
PMCPMC12399714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.