4.5 Article

The evolving landscape of sex-based differences in lung cancer: a distinct disease in women

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY REVIEW
卷 31, 期 163, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0100-2021

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIHMD [K23MD013474]
  2. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In contrast to a few decades ago, the incidence rates of lung cancer in women are now comparable to or higher than those in men and are rising rapidly in many parts of the world. Women face unique risk factors for lung cancer, including both exogenous and endogenous exposures. The current screening guidelines may not accurately assess the lung cancer risk in women. Women diagnosed with lung cancer have a clear mortality benefit compared to men, but there may be sex-based differences in treatment outcomes and side effects.
In stark contrast to a few decades ago when lung cancer was predominantly a disease of men who smoke, incidence rates of lung cancer in women are now comparable to or higher than those in men and are rising alarmingly in many parts of the world. Women face a unique set of risk factors for lung cancer compared to men. These include exogenous exposures including radon, prior radiation, and fumes from indoor cooking materials such as coal, in addition to endogenous exposures such as oestrogen and distinct genetic polymorphisms. Current screening guidelines only address tobacco use and likely underrepresent lung cancer risk in women. Women were also not well represented in some of the landmark prospective studies that led to the development of current screening guidelines. Women diagnosed with lung cancer have a clear mortality benefit compared to men even when other clinical and demographic characteristics are accounted for. However, there may be sex-based differences in outcomes and side effects of systemic therapy, particularly with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Ongoing research is needed to better investigate these differences to address the rapidly changing demographics of lung cancer worldwide.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据