P1.16-33 From a Systematic Review to Real World Evidence: Integrating Gender as a Clinical Risk Factor in NSCLC

Abstract

Gender-based disparities in NSCLC experience have been widely discussed in the literature. The recognition of gender as a confounder in clinical practice remains uncertain. Confirming its impact on prognosis encourages personalized interventions in an effort to improve survival for NSCLC patients. Since best prevention programs are derived from findings established from multiple-evidence based analysis, the influence of gender on the observed disparities in NSCLC was explored using worldwide evidence and single institute experience. A systematic review was initially carried out to synthesize the evidence on a global scale to confirm the influence of gender-discrepancies in NSCLC incidence rates. Findings were compared and contrasted using a single cancer institute to highlight potential trends related to the different data. We identified relevant articles published in English using Medline between 1996 and 2016. Pooled standardized-incidence data was analyzed using a semi-parametric longitudinal regression model to estimate changes in NSCLC incidence as a function of time, histology and gender. A heat map was also designed to illustrate the global trend of NSCLC captured in the published articles. Findings of this review were evaluated to confirm the influence of gender on NSCLC trends and outcomes using a single center record. A retrospective analysis was performed using the Glans-Look Database (GLD) for patients diagnosed between 1999 and 2015. The Kaplan-Meier estimator of cumulative survival was conducted to analyze treatment outcomes of patients using SPSS and R. Statistical significance was set at 95% confidence level (p <0.05). Our systematic review demonstrated gender-based disparities over time, and the main effect of gender on incidence rates is significant (p=0.01). Visualizing global trends of NSCLC’s histology confirm that women are prone to develop ADC. GLD data verifies the influence of gender, where women were more prone to develop ADC (49%), and the relative changes of its rate over 15 years increased significantly compared to men (58% vs 32%, P<0.02). Survival rates were also predisposed by gender, where female ADC mOS exceeded that of males in overall comparisons (17.6 vs. 12.2, p=0.047). Our findings serve as a basis to resolve the inherent controversies in the research, and highlight the importance of gender as a clinical risk factor. Therefore, it is important to include gender as a prognostic tool to improve screening programs and promote tailored therapies for better outcomes. Biological, social, or a combination of factors could also influence the differences observed and warrant further investigation.