e-Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2021

Gender representation amongst Principal Investigators of trials run by a large academic collaborative group (#294)

Eva Segelov 1
  1. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Introduction: Gender equity and diversity has become a significant topic of discussion at contemporary academic cancer meetings, not only in relation to patients but now with a particular focus on clinical staff. The number of female academic leads in GI cancer studies has been reported to be low. This study examined the gender of PI’s in past, present and planned studies run by the Australasian GastroIntestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

Methods: Publicly available data was obtained from website Clinical Trials - GI Cancer , accessed 14.7.21 12-5pm. Trials were divided into those for Upper and Lower GI cancer, and Miscellaneous (mostly GIST and NET). Where the website listed 2 PI’s, both were counted.

Results:  There were 69 trials listed involving 87 PI’s, of which 18 were women (21%). However, only 7 women were sole PI’s (8%).

Distribution was similar by category (Upper GI v Lower GI v other). Females PI’s (including co-PI) according to trial status was: 11% of completed trials (n= 43); 29% of trials follow-up (n=6); 32% of open (n=14); 29% of trials in preparation (n=6).

Sixteen trials were led by two co-PI’s (almost equal between male, male and male, female); 1 was led by 1 male, 2 females).  No trials had 2 female co-PI’s. All female PI’s were medical oncologists: there were 0 females of 11 surgical and 7 radiation oncology PI’s.

Conclusions: There is a low percentage of female PI’s, particularly sole PI’s. Females were much more likely than males to be a co-PI. There has never been a female surgical or radiation oncology PI. There has been some increase in female PI’s over time (using completed v open v planned trials as a time surrogate). Specific strategies to increase female leadership in GI trials should be put in place, including understanding the reasons driving the disparity.