Subscription Center
Jun 8, 2009 12:16 AM | 1
Although women get most kinds of cancer just about as much as men do, they're still not participating in clinical studies as often, reports a new study published online today in the journal Cancer.
The study analyzed participants in 661 papers published in eight "high impact journals" (including Cancer, Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) and found that women made up an average of 38 percent of non–sex specific cancer study participants. For example, although women contract just a bit less than 50 percent of gastrointestinal cancers, they made up less than 40 percent of the trials for those cancers.
"It's so important that women are appropriately represented in research," lead study author and assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School, Reshma Jagsi said in a statement. "We know there are biological differences between the sexes, a well as social and cultural differences. Studies need to be able to assess whether there are differences in responses to treatment."
Government-funded studies, which are under a 1993 directive from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to enroll both more women and minorities, had a slightly higher share of female participants at 41 percent.
So why aren’t there more women in studies? It may be more difficult to recruit them: Jagsi noted that women are already having to balance "domestic responsibilities, their cancer diagnosis, and often a career as well." She recommends offering more money to cover extra childcare or transportation expenses.
A 2007 study published in the same journal outlined the difficulties in recruiting other underrepresented groups—including racial minorities, those with lower income, rural residents and older adults—to participate in cancer trials. Whites, for example, still made up more than 88 percent of those enrolled in publicly funded cancer clinical trials between 2003 and 2005, according to the Intercultural Cancer Council at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. That’s despite the fact that U.S. blacks still die more frequently from cancer than whites.
Image courtesy of iStockphoto/LilliDay
Tags:
women,
cancer
More News Blog:
Next: No leader in energy efficiency, Department of Energy fails energy audit
Previous: Planes, trains or automobiles? Air travel may be no worse for the environment than rail
See what we're tweeting about
Myrmecos "The Tappan Zee routinely sheds chunks of concrete, like so much dandruff, into the river below." http://t.co/UkC9JEuABr Speaking of bridges
beatricebiology I'm thinking of having my genome sequenced to inform the book I'm writing about genetics, What's in Your Genes? http://t.co/tDjNUqx1xk
KateClancy +1 RT @Dhunterauthor: Everyone go read this now. Especially writers. And people who don't see women. http://t.co/luSFdrDOB3 via @skepchicks
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
1 Comments
Add CommentCancer research is drug funded so though I am a person who refused medical treatment and has survived for 7 years ,by removing stress and changed my diet and life style,and I am feeling the best I have ever felt in my life,I am of no interest to the medical proffesion,no profit in researching me.Did you know only 50% of all cancer suffers survive longer than 5 years .shocking but swine flue and its potentual drug profit is more interesting? in the UK alone 130 thousand die of cancer each year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this