Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025

Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts
Published on: July 25, 2020
Analysis of Female Participant Representation in Registered Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States from 2008
Nirosha D Perera1, Tiffany R Bellomo2, Walker M Schmidt3
1Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Background:
Female underrepresentation in oncology clinical trials can result in outcome disparities. We evaluated female participant representation in US oncology trials by intervention type, cancer site, and funding.
Materials And Methods:
Data were extracted from the publicly available Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. Initially, 270,172 studies were identified. Following the exclusion of trials using Medical Subject Heading terms, manual review, those with incomplete status, non-US location, sex-specific organ cancers, or lacking participant sex data, 1650 trials consisting of 240,776 participants remained. The primary outcome was participation to prevalence ratio (PPR): percent females among trial participants divided by percent females in the disease population per US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data. PPRs of 0.8-1.2 reflect proportional female representation.
Results:
Females represented 46.9% of participants (95% CI, 45.4-48.4); mean PPR for all trials was 0.912. Females were underrepresented in surgical (PPR 0.74) and other invasive (PPR 0.69) oncology trials. Among cancer sites, females were underrepresented in bladder (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, P = .02), head/neck (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.68, P < .01), stomach (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.70, P < .01), and esophageal (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.22-0.74, P < .01) trials. Hematologic (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P < .01) and pancreatic (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46-3.26, P < .01) trials had higher odds of proportional female representation. Industry-funded trials had greater odds of proportional female representation (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P = .01) than US government and academic-funded trials.
Conclusions:
Stakeholders should look to hematologic, pancreatic, and industry-funded cancer trials as exemplars of female participant representation and consider female representation when interpreting trial results.
Insights
Female underrepresentation persists in US oncology trials, particularly in surgical interventions and certain cancer sites. Hematologic, pancreatic, and industry-funded trials show better female representation, offering models for improvement.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Clinical Trials
- Health Disparities
Background:
- Female underrepresentation in oncology clinical trials can lead to disparities in treatment outcomes.
- Evaluating female participant representation across different trial types, cancer sites, and funding sources is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the extent of female participant representation in US oncology clinical trials.
- To identify factors associated with proportional female representation, including intervention type, cancer site, and funding source.
Main Methods:
- Data from 1650 US oncology trials (240,776 participants) were analyzed using the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database.
- The participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) was calculated to compare female representation in trials versus the general disease population.
- Statistical analyses, including odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), were used to determine significant associations.
Main Results:
- Overall, females constituted 46.9% of trial participants, with a mean PPR of 0.912, indicating slight underrepresentation.
- Underrepresentation was noted in surgical (PPR 0.74) and other invasive trials (PPR 0.69).
- Specific cancer sites like bladder, head/neck, stomach, and esophageal trials showed significant female underrepresentation, while hematologic and pancreatic trials had higher proportional representation. Industry-funded trials demonstrated greater proportional female representation compared to government or academic-funded trials.
Conclusions:
- Hematologic, pancreatic, and industry-funded oncology trials serve as positive examples for achieving proportional female participant representation.
- Stakeholders should consider these exemplars and the implications of female representation when interpreting clinical trial results to ensure equitable outcomes.
More Related Videos
07:41Performing Data Mining And Integrative Analysis Of Biomarker in Breast Cancer Using Multiple Publicly Accessible Databases
Published on: May 17, 2019
07:50Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study
Published on: April 18, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Clinical Trials: Overview
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Treatment Resistant Cancers
mTOR Signaling and Cancer Progression
The mTOR pathway or the...