Background: Sex and gender are vitally important in the study of epigenetic mechanisms for various types of cancer. However, little has been done to assess the state of sex and gender-based analyses (SGBA) in this field. The aim was to undertake a critical evaluation of sex and gender representation, discussion, and data analysis within the cancer epigenetics field since 2010.Methods: A PRISMA-ScR scoping review was conducted with 111 peer-reviewed studies comprising of colorectal, gastric, head and neck, hepatocellular carcinoma, and lung cancers. Data extraction and a quality appraisal were performed by a team of epidemiologists and bioethicists.Results: Of the 111 included studies, only 17 studies (15.3%) explicitly stated sex and gender analysis to be their primary aim. A total of 103 studies (92.8%) provided a detailed analysis of sex/gender as a biological or social variable, while the remaining 8 studies (7.2%) only stratified results by sex/gender. Although sex and gender were a key facet in all the eligible studies, only 7 studies (6.3%) provided an explicit definition of the terms “sex” or “gender”, while the remaining 104 studies (93.7%) used the words “sex” or “gender” without providing a definition. A total of 84 studies (75.7%) conflated the concepts of “sex” and “gender”, while 44 studies (39.6%) were inconsistent with their usage of the “sex” and “gender” terms.Conclusions: Very few studies offered a robust analysis of sex/gender data according to SAGER guidelines. We call for clear and directed guidelines regarding the use of sex/gender as a variable in epigenetics research.
背景：在各类癌症的表观遗传机制研究中，性别与社会性别因素至关重要。然而，该领域对基于性别与社会性别分析（SGBA）的现状评估尚显不足。本研究旨在对2010年以来癌症表观遗传学领域中性别与社会性别的呈现方式、讨论深度及数据分析进行批判性评估。 方法：采用PRISMA-ScR范围综述框架，纳入111项涵盖结直肠癌、胃癌、头颈癌、肝细胞癌及肺癌的同行评议研究。由流行病学与生命伦理学专家团队完成数据提取与质量评估。 结果：在111项纳入研究中，仅17项（15.3%）明确将性别与社会性别分析列为主要研究目标。103项研究（92.8%）对性别/社会性别作为生物学或社会变量进行了详细分析，其余8项（7.2%）仅按性别/社会性别分层呈现结果。尽管所有符合条件的研究均涉及性别与社会性别维度，但仅7项（6.3%）明确定义了"性别"或"社会性别"术语，其余104项（93.7%）未作定义直接使用相关术语。84项研究（75.7%）混淆了"性别"与"社会性别"概念，44项研究（39.6%）存在术语使用不一致现象。 结论：极少数研究能依据SAGER指南对性别/社会性别数据进行严谨分析。我们呼吁在表观遗传学研究中建立明确导向的指南，规范性别/社会性别作为研究变量的使用标准。
Studies in Cancer Epigenetics through a Sex and Gendered Lens: A Comprehensive Scoping Review
肿瘤(癌症)患者之家