ArticleUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Sex distribution in clinical studies in uro-oncology-status quo in Germany].
Article in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile there are approved biomarker-based drugs in uro-oncology, no sex-specific drug approvals have been granted to date, despite corresponding subgroup results.
objectiveTo assess the sex distribution in uro-oncologic clinical trials in Germany, focusing on enrollment rates and treatment-related toxicity. MATERIALS AND
methodsA survey was conducted among the Working Group for Urological Oncology (AUO) of the German Cancer Society. The following parameters were collected from phase II/III studies conducted between 2015 and 2023 on urothelial carcinoma (UC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC): number of male/female study participants with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade I-II or III-V, dose modifications, and study discontinuations. Sex-specific enrollment rates were compared with epidemiological benchmarks. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test and odds ratios.
resultsAcross nine responding study centers, 106 patients were enrolled, of whom 20.8% were female. Compared with (inter)national benchmarks, female enrollment rates seemed lower (RCC: 21.1% vs. 34.1% and 26.6%; UC: 20.7% vs. 27.0% and 27.3%). This trend was consistent across all RCC and UC disease stages, except for locally advanced/metastatic UC, where the proportion of females was higher (36.4% vs. 32.5% and 25.8%). Female patients tend to discontinue participation more frequently (54.5% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.09; OR = 2.4). Differences in adverse events and dose modifications were not statistically significant.
conclusionIn Germany, a sex imbalance is evident in RCC and UC clinical trials regarding enrollment and discontinuation rates, often to the disadvantage of female patients. Stratification by sex at trial enrollment or more extensive pharmacokinetic analyses could support sex-adjusted treatment regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371009What 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.