SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Sex-based prognosis in industry-sponsored advanced solid tumor trials: an individual participant data meta-analysis of survival and adverse events.
Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSex is a recognized modifier of physiology, immunity, and social exposures, yet its independent association with survival and adverse event prognosis in contemporary anticancer therapy remains poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to assess the association between patient sex and overall survival, progression-free survival, and grade 3 or greater adverse events across a pooled individual participant data meta-analysis.
methodsIndividual participant data supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval of anticancer medicines for solid tumors between 2011 and 2021 were accessed through the Vivli and Yale University Open Data Access data sharing platforms. A 2-stage random-effects meta-analysis approach was employed using Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate sex-based prognostic differences in overall survival, progression-free survival, and grade 3 or greater adverse events. Analyses were adjusted for key baseline covariates.
resultsIn a pooled cohort of 20 806 participants from 39 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting Food and Drug Administration approvals of anticancer medicines for advanced solid tumors, across 12 tumor types, female sex was associated with statistically significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.85; P < .001) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.89; P < .001). Conversely, female patients experienced a higher risk of grade 3 or greater adverse events (hazard ratio = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.18; P < .001).
conclusionsIn the largest analysis of individual participant data from trials supporting Food and Drug Administration drug approvals, we found that female patients had a 21% lower risk of death and a 16% lower risk of progression but a 12% higher risk of severe adverse events. These findings highlight the value of individual participant data sharing and the importance of sex-stratified evidence for risk stratification, dose optimization, and patient counseling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.