From presentation to paper: Gender disparities in oncological research

The Concerning Disaggregation of Gender and Racial/Ethnicity Disparity Investigation at Recent ASCO Annual Meetings

OBJECTIVES

There has been a recent emphasis in the peer-reviewed oncology literature on examining disparities by gender. Such emphasis provides an excellent opportunity to simultaneously examine race/ethnicity disparities in the same cohort. The degree to which gender disparities research has been performed concomitantly with racial disparities research at prominent oncologic societies has yet to be investigated.

METHODS

ABSTRACTs presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting were reviewed. Abstracts selected for the oral abstract or clinical science symposium sessions at the 2020, 2021, and 2022 annual meetings were evaluated to determine the amount of gender disparities research presented. Such research was further assessed to determine whether racial/ethnicity disparities were examined simultaneously.

RESULTS

From 2020 to 2022, 1219 abstracts were presented at the ASCO annual meetings, oral abstract or clinical science symposium sessions. Of these, 7 involved gender disparities examination, of which only 2 (29%) concomitantly examined race/ethnicity. No study since 2020 concomitantly examined gender and racial disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 70% of gender disparities work presented at ASCO has been disaggregated from concomitant racial disparities examination, with complete disaggregation since 2021. Gender disparities work remains a miniscule aspect of the overall research landscape. Future work in examining gender disparities may be best aggregated with racial/ethnicity disparities to optimize timely solutions in both areas; such work could potentially be incentivized from the inclusion criteria of future funding mechanisms.

Gender equity of authorship in pulmonary medicine over the past decade

BACKGROUND

Gender disparity in authorship broadly persists in medical literature, little is known about female authorship within pulmonary medicine.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021 in 12 journals with the highest impact in pulmonary medicine was conducted. Only original research and review articles were included. Names of the first and last authors were extracted and their genders were identified using the Gender-API web. Female authorship was described by overall distribution and distribution by country/region/continent and journal. We compared the article citations by gender combinations, evaluated the trend in female authorship, and forecasted when parity for first and last authorship would be reached. We also conducted a systematic review of female authorship in clinical medicine.

RESULTS

14,875 articles were included, and the overall percentage of female first authors was higher than last authors (37.0% vs 22.2%, p<0.001). Asia had the lowest percentage of female first (27.6%) and last (15.2%) authors. The percentages of female first and last authors increased slightly over time, except for a rapid increase in the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Parity was predicted in 2046 for the first authors and 2059 for the last authors. Articles with male authors were cited more than articles with female authors. However, male-male collaborations significantly decreased, whereas female-female collaborations significantly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the slow improvement in female authorship over the past decade, there is still a substantial gender disparity in female first and last authorship in high-impact medical journals in pulmonary medicine.

What is the gender representation in authorship in later phase systemic clinical trials in biliary tract cancer (BTC)? - a retrospective review of the published literature

OBJECTIVES

Female physicians in medicine are increasing, but disparities in female authorship exist. The aim of this study was to characterise factors associated with female first (FF) and female senior (SF) authorship in later phase systemic oncological clinical trials in biliary tract cancer (BTC) and identify any changes over time.

SETTING

Embase/Medline identified trial publications in BTC (2000-2020) were included. χ² tests and log regression were used (assessed factors associated with FF and SF authorship, including changes over time (STATA V.16)).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

FF and SF authorship in later phase systemic oncological clinical trials in BTC.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Any changes over time?

RESULTS

Of 501 publications, 163 met inclusion criteria. The median percentage of female author representation in publications was 25%; there were no female authors in 13% of publications. Geographic location of the home institution of the first and senior authors was Asia (42%/42%), Europe (29%/29%), USA (24%/22%) and other (4%/6%), respectively. Overall, FF and SF author representation was 20% and 10%, respectively. The median position of the first female author was second in all the publication author lists. The phase of trial, journal-impact factor, industry funding or whether the study met its primary endpoint did not impact FF/SF author representation. More SF authors had home institutions in 'other' geographic locations (40% in 10 trials) (p=0.02) versus Asia (6%), Europe (8%) and USA (14%). There were no significant changes in FF/SF representation over time (p=0.61 and p=0.33 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

FF and SF author representation in later phase systemic clinical trial publications in BTC is low and has not changed significantly over time. The underlying reasons for this imbalance need to be better understood and addressed.

Gender Disparities in Presentations at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) Meetings From 2014 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Participation in surgical society meetings serves as a proxy for academic success and is important for career development. This study aimed to investigate and report the gender breakdown of presenters at recent Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meetings.

METHODS

Genders of presenters for poster, parallel, plenary, and video sessions at SSO meetings from 2014 through 2019 were collected. These data were broken down to first-last authorship relationships including female-female, female-male, male-female, and male-male. The proportions of female-to-male presenters were compared for each session type. Statistical significance was set at p value lower than 0.05.

RESULTS

From 2014 through 2019, the SSO had 2920 presenters, and 47% were female. Women were listed as first authors more often for the poster session (48%) than for other sessions (parallel, plenary, and video) (p = 0.003). Women also were listed more often as senior authors for the poster session (31%) than for other sessions (p = 0.004). Female senior authors were fewer than male senior authors across all session types. Female first authors had the highest representation in breast (75%), endocrine (48%), and cutaneous (46%) specialties (p < 0.001). The most common combination of first and senior authors was male-male (43%), followed by female-male (28%), female-female (19%), and male-female (10%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, female presentation at SSO is comparable with society demographics, and female first authorship is relatively equal to male first authorship in poster sessions. Whereas female first authorship improved over time, female senior authorship remained relatively flat. Opportunities to improve gender equality in senior authorship positions should be explored.

Gender influence on work satisfaction and leadership for medical oncologists: a survey of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM)

Background

Women represent an increasing proportion of the oncology workforce; however, globally this does not translate into leadership roles, reflecting disparities in career opportunities between men and women. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) undertook a survey to investigate gender disparity in the Spanish oncology context.

Design

An online survey was made available to SEOM medical oncologists between February and May 2019. It included demographics, professional context and achievements, parenthood and family conciliation issues, workplace gender bias, and approaches to address disparities.

Results

Of the 316 eligible respondents, 71.5% were women, 59.5% were aged 45 or younger, and 66.1% had children. Among women, 12.4% were division or unit heads, compared with 45.5% of men, with most women (74.3%) being attending medical oncologists, compared with 45.5% of men. More males were professors (34.4% versus 14.2% of females), had a PhD (46.7% versus 28.8%), and/or had led clinical research groups (41.1% versus 9.7%). Spending time overseas after completing a residency was also more common for men than women (34.4% versus 20.4%). Professional satisfaction was similar between genders, driven primarily by patient care and intellectual stimulation. More women (40.7%) considered parenthood to have a strong negative impact on their career, compared with men (9.0%). Main perceived barriers to gender equality included a lack of work–life balance (72.6% women, 44.4% men), bias of peers and superiors (50.0% women, 18.9% men), and different career goals (41.2% women, 24.4% men). Preferred solutions included educational programs and scholarships (52.9%), communication and leadership training (35.8%), childcare at conferences (33.2%), and postmaternity return-to-work incentives (32.0%).

Conclusion

There is a clear paucity of equal opportunities for female oncologists in Spain. This can be addressed by encouraging professional development and merit recognition particularly for younger female oncologists, and empowering women to be involved in management and leadership of institutions and professional societies.

•

Under-representation of women in leadership roles in oncology is a widely acknowledged issue receiving global attention.

•

This study is a national description of leadership and educational opportunities in terms of gender and family circumstances.

•

Perceptions of gender bias in the workplace gender inequality or family conciliation issues and are described.

•

Initiatives for equal opportunities in oncology are needed supporting female academic career development and recognition.

Recommendations to the Society for Epidemiologic Research for Further Promoting Diversity and Inclusion at the Annual Meeting and Beyond

Increasing diverse engagement in the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) will positively impact the field of epidemiology. As the largest and longest-running epidemiologic society in North America, SER has long been a pioneer in promoting diversity and inclusion. A recent survey of SER members, however, showed there is still room for improving diversity, inclusion, representation, and participation in the Society. In this commentary, as members of both the SER and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology's Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-Racism, and Science (Epi IDEAS) Working Group, we recommend 4 goals for the SER Annual Meeting and beyond: 1) convene epidemiologic researchers with diverse backgrounds and ideas; 2) promote an inclusive environment at the SER Annual Meeting; 3) develop, compile, and disseminate best practices to honor diversity in epidemiologic research; and 4) increase prioritization of health disparities research and methods. We also suggest strategies for achieving these goals so that SER can better include, support, and elevate members from historically disadvantaged groups. While our recommendations are tailored specifically to SER, the greater epidemiologic and academic communities could benefit from adopting these goals and strategies within their professional societies and conferences.

Mind the gap: Gendered publication trends in oncology

BACKGROUND

Investigating scientific publication trends in the field of oncology may highlight opportunities for improved representation, mentorship, collaboration, and advancement for women.

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of Annals of Surgical Oncology; Cancer; International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP); JAMA Oncology; and Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2017. Full name and degree credentials per author role (ie, first or senior author), article type, publication year, and citation metrics were collected. First names were used to identify author gender.

RESULTS

Across 9189 articles, female representation rose between 1990 and 2017 (first authors: 17.7% in 1990, 36.6% in 2017; senior authors: 11.7% in 1990, 28.5% in 2017). For the 50 most cited articles per year, women comprised a smaller percent of first (26.5%) and senior (19.9%) authors. The average citation count was higher for male first (44.8 per article) and senior (47.1) authors compared to female first (39.7) and senior (44.1) authors. With male senior authors, the first author was more likely male (71.4% male; 25.0% female); with female senior authors, first authors were 50.2% male and 47.6% female. IJROBP had the lowest total female representation among first (25.1%) and senior (16.7%) authors. Women had more MDs with Masters degrees, whereas men held more MDs only and more MDs with PhDs.

CONCLUSION

Despite positive trends, substantial gendered differences in oncology publications persist. Fostering more women in oncology research will benefit female representation at many levels of academia and improve productivity, collaboration, and recruitment, especially in technical fields such as radiation and surgical oncology.