It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Immune checkpoint blockade therapies have extended patient survival across multiple cancer lineages, but there is a heated debate on whether cancer immunotherapy efficacy is different between male and female patients. We summarize the existing meta-analysis to show inconsistent conclusions for whether gender is associated with the immunotherapy response. We analyze molecular profiling from ICB-treated patients to identify molecular differences for immunotherapy responsiveness. We perform comprehensive analyses for patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and reveal divergent patterns for sex bias in immune features across multiple cancer types. We further validate our observations in multiple independent data sets. Considering that the majority of clinical trials are in melanoma and lung cancer, meta-analyses that pool multiple cancer types have limitations to discern whether cancer immunotherapy efficacy is different between male and female patients. Future studies should include omics profiling to investigate sex-associated molecular differences in immunotherapy.
Immunotherapy has tremendous potential to treat many patients with cancer. In this study, the authors investigate the impact of gender on the response to therapy, highlighting the importance to include omics profiling in clinical studies.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Immunology, Faculty of Basic Medicine, Shanghai, China (GRID:grid.16821.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 8293); The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.267308.8) (ISNI:0000 0000 9206 2401)
2 The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.267308.8) (ISNI:0000 0000 9206 2401)
3 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Biostatistics, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.240145.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 2291 4776)
4 Oregon Health and Science University, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, USA (GRID:grid.5288.7) (ISNI:0000 0000 9758 5690)
5 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.240145.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 2291 4776)
6 Central South University, Department of Dermatology, Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, China (GRID:grid.216417.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0379 7164)
7 The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.267308.8) (ISNI:0000 0000 9206 2401); The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Center for Precision Health, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.267308.8) (ISNI:0000 0000 9206 2401)