From presentation to paper: gender disparities in oncological research

Gender disparities in scientific publications have been identified in oncological research. Oral research presentations at major conferences enhance visibility of presenters. The share of women presenting at such podia is unknown. We aim to identify gender-based differences in contributions to presentations at two major oncological conferences. Abstracts presented at plenary sessions of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses were collected. Trend analyses were used to analyze female contribution over time. The association between presenter's sex, study outcome (positive/negative) and journals' impact factors (IFs) of subsequently published papers was assessed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Of 166 consecutive abstracts presented at ASCO in 2011-2018 (n = 34) and ESMO in 2008-2018 (n = 132), 21% had female presenters, all originating from Northern America (n = 17) or Europe (n = 18). The distribution of presenter's sex was similar over time (p = 0.70). Of 2,425 contributing authors to these presented abstracts, 28% were women. The proportion of female abstract authors increased over time (p <0.05) and was higher in abstracts with female (34%) compared to male presenters (26%; p <0.01). Presenter's sex was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.82). Median journals' IFs were lower in papers with a female first author (p <0.05). In conclusion, there is a clear gender disparity in research presentations at two major oncological conferences, with 28% of authors and 21% of presenters of these studies being female. Lack of visibility of female presenters could impair acknowledgement for their research, opportunities in their academic career and even hamper heterogeneity in research

Cytoplasmic levels of cFLIP determine a broad susceptibility of breast cancer stem/progenitor-like cells to TRAIL

Background The clinical application of TRAIL receptor agonists as a novel cancer therapy has been tempered by heterogeneity in tumour responses. This is illustrated in breast cancer, where TRAIL is cytotoxic in cell lines of mesenchymal origin but refractory in lines with an epithelial-like phenotype. However, it is now evident that intra-tumour heterogeneity includes a minority subpopulation of tumour-initiating stem/progenitor-like cells (CSCs) that possess mesenchymal characteristics. We hypothesised therefore that TRAIL may target these phenotypically distinct CSC-like cells that are common to most - if not all - breast cancers, thus impacting on the source of malignancy in a much broader range of breast tumour subtypes than previously envisaged. Methods We used colony formation, tumoursphere, flow cytometry and xenograft tumour initiation assays to observe the TRAIL sensitivity of CSC-like cells in a panel of two mesenchymal-like (TRAIL-sensitive) and four epithelial-like (TRAIL-resistant) breast cancer cell lines. Subcellular levels of the endogenous TRAIL inhibitor, cFLIP, were determined by western blot and immunofluorescence microscopy. The effect of the subcellular redistribution of cFLIP on TRAIL sensitivity and Wnt signalling was determined using cFLIP localisation mutants and the TOPFlash reporter assay respectively. Results TRAIL universally suppressed the clonal expansion of stem/progenitors in all six of the breast cancer cell lines tested, irrespective of their phenotype or overall sensitivity to TRAIL. A concomitant reduction in tumour initiation was confirmed in the TRAIL-resistant epithelial cell line, MCF-7, following serial dilution xenotransplantation. Furthermore TRAIL sensitivity of breast CSCs was inversely proportional to the relative cytoplasmic levels of cFLIP while overexpression of cFLIP in the cytosol using subcellular localization mutants of cFLIP protected these cells from cytotoxicity. The accumulation of nuclear cFLIP on the other hand did not influence TRAIL cytotoxicity but instead promoted Wnt-dependent signalling. Conclusion These data propose a novel role for TRAIL as a selective CSC agent with a broad specificity for both epithelial and mesenchymal breast tumour subtypes. Furthermore we identify a dual role for cFLIP in the maintenance of breast CSC viability, dependent upon its subcellular distribution

From presentation to paper: Gender disparities in oncological research.

Gender disparities in scientific publications have been identified in oncological research. Oral research presentations at major conferences enhance visibility of presenters. The share of women presenting at such podia is unknown. We aim to identify gender-based differences in contributions to presentations at two major oncological conferences. Abstracts presented at plenary sessions of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses were collected. Trend analyses were used to analyze female contribution over time. The association between presenter's sex, study outcome (positive/negative) and journals' impact factors (IFs) of subsequently published papers was assessed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Of 166 consecutive abstracts presented at ASCO in 2011-2018 (n = 34) and ESMO in 2008-2018 (n = 132), 21% had female presenters, all originating from Northern America (n = 17) or Europe (n = 18). The distribution of presenter's sex was similar over time (p = 0.70). Of 2,425 contributing authors to these presented abstracts, 28% were women. The proportion of female abstract authors increased over time (p < 0.05) and was higher in abstracts with female (34%) compared to male presenters (26%; p < 0.01). Presenter's sex was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.82). Median journals' IFs were lower in papers with a female first author (p < 0.05). In conclusion, there is a clear gender disparity in research presentations at two major oncological conferences, with 28% of authors and 21% of presenters of these studies being female. Lack of visibility of female presenters could impair acknowledgement for their research, opportunities in their academic career and even hamper heterogeneity in research