3 Gender Disparities in the National Institutes of Health Funding for Breast Cancer

Publication
Article
Miami Breast Cancer Conference® Abstracts Supplement41st Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference® - Abstracts
Volume 38
Issue 4
Pages: 7

Background

There has been an underrepresentation of women in academic medicine, resulting in discriminatory distribution of research grants. This study examines the trend of funding allocation of R01 grants in breast oncology by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a specific focus on the distribution of funding between genders.

Materials and Methods

Characteristics of NIH Grants Focused on Breast Oncology Research for the Fiscal Years of 2018-2021

Characteristics of NIH Grants Focused on Breast Oncology Research for the Fiscal Years of 2018-2021

The data were retrieved from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure) using breast oncology–related search terms from 2018 to 2021. The gender was categorized using Genderize. The number of citations, publications, H-index, and seniority were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science in December 2022. Consumer Price Index was used to adjust the funding amount to 2021 equivalent US dollars. Linear regression was used for analysis.

Results

A total of 885 NIH-funded R01 grants amounting to $444.6 million were awarded for breast oncology research. Women (n = 390; 44.1% [95% CI, 40.8%-47.3%]) received relatively fewer grants than men (n = 495; 55.9% [95% CI, 52.7%-59.2%]). From 2018 to 2021, there was a significant increase in the number of grants awarded among both men (90-155, P < .01) and women (71-115, P = .036). Similarly, there was a significant increase in the grant amount (in millions) awarded among men (43.4-76.5, P < .01) but not in women (36.7-56.1, P = .11). Of the 212 co–principal investigators (PIs), 133 (62.7% [95% CI, 56.2%-69.2%]) were men and 76 (37.3% [95% CI, 30.8%-43.8%]) were women. There was no significant difference in H-index (48 vs 44, P = .12), number of publications (158 vs 138, P = .08), and citations (13,272 vs 8092, P = .06) between the male and female PIs. The funding amount was significantly associated with the number of publications (β = .35, P < .01), seniority (β = .25, P < .01), and institution (P < .01).

Conclusions

Our analysis shows continued gender disparity, as only 44% of total R01 grants were awarded to females for breast oncology between the fiscal years 2018-2021. However, the proportion of discrepancy is lower as compared with other malignancies. A collaborative effort is still needed to bridge the gap and advance gender equality.

Articles in this issue

1 Centrally Located Breast Cancer Is More Aggressive in Bahraini Patients
1 Centrally Located Breast Cancer Is More Aggressive in Bahraini Patients
2 Is Laterality in Breast Cancer Still Worth Studying? Local Experience in Bahrain
2 Is Laterality in Breast Cancer Still Worth Studying? Local Experience in Bahrain
3 Gender Disparities in the  National Institutes of Health  Funding for Breast Cancer
3 Gender Disparities in the National Institutes of Health Funding for Breast Cancer
4 Bacopaside: Exploring Its Potential in Addressing Chemoresistance and Modulating Doxorubicin Accumulation in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells
4 Bacopaside: Exploring Its Potential in Addressing Chemoresistance and Modulating Doxorubicin Accumulation in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells
5 Predictors of Axillary Complete Pathologic Response in Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative, Clinically Node-Positive Breast Cancer
5 Predictors of Axillary Complete Pathologic Response in Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative, Clinically Node-Positive Breast Cancer
6 Treatment Outcomes of the KEYNOTE-522 Regimen in an Ethnically Diverse Patient Population
6 Treatment Outcomes of the KEYNOTE-522 Regimen in an Ethnically Diverse Patient Population
7 Real-World Efficacy and Adverse Events of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Experience
7 Real-World Efficacy and Adverse Events of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Experience
8 Using a Liquid Biopsy Mediated Approach for Determination of HER2 Amplification Status in Patient Samples
8 Using a Liquid Biopsy Mediated Approach for Determination of HER2 Amplification Status in Patient Samples
9 Elacestrant (ELA) vs Standard-of-Care (SOC) in ER+/HER2–Advanced (adv) or Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) with ESR1 Mutation (ESR1-mut): Key Biomarkers and Clinical Subgroup Analyses From the Phase 3 EMERALD Trial
9 Elacestrant (ELA) vs Standard-of-Care (SOC) in ER+/HER2–Advanced (adv) or Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) with ESR1 Mutation (ESR1-mut): Key Biomarkers and Clinical Subgroup Analyses From the Phase 3 EMERALD Trial
10 Real-World Effectiveness of Palbociclib (PAL) Plus Aromatase Inhibitors (AI) in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) and Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD)
10 Real-World Effectiveness of Palbociclib (PAL) Plus Aromatase Inhibitors (AI) in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) and Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD)
11 Phase 3 Study of Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Chemotherapy, Followed by Adjuvant Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Endocrine Therapy for Early-Stage High-Risk ER+/HER2– Breast Cancer: KEYNOTE-756
11 Phase 3 Study of Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Chemotherapy, Followed by Adjuvant Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Endocrine Therapy for Early-Stage High-Risk ER+/HER2– Breast Cancer: KEYNOTE-756
12 EMERALD Trial Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Patients (pts) With ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast  Cancer (mBC) Comparing Oral Elacestrant vs Standard-of-Care (SoC) Endocrine Therapy
12 EMERALD Trial Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Patients (pts) With ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) Comparing Oral Elacestrant vs Standard-of-Care (SoC) Endocrine Therapy
13 The Cause and Eradication of Breast Cancer
13 The Cause and Eradication of Breast Cancer
14 Outcomes With First-Line (1L) Ribociclib (RIB) + Endocrine Therapy (ET) vs Physician’s Choice Combination Chemotherapy (combo CT) by Age in Pre/Perimenopausal Patients (pts) With Aggressive HR+/HER2– Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC): A Subgroup Analysis of the RIGHT Choice Trial
14 Outcomes With First-Line (1L) Ribociclib (RIB) + Endocrine Therapy (ET) vs Physician’s Choice Combination Chemotherapy (combo CT) by Age in Pre/Perimenopausal Patients (pts) With Aggressive HR+/HER2– Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC): A Subgroup Analysis of the RIGHT Choice Trial
15 Concurrent Use of Abemaciclib and Radiation Therapy (RT) Among Patients With HR+, HER2– Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC): Real-World Utilization and Safety
15 Concurrent Use of Abemaciclib and Radiation Therapy (RT) Among Patients With HR+, HER2– Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC): Real-World Utilization and Safety
Recent Videos
Paolo Tarantino, MD, discusses the potential utility of agents such as datopotamab deruxtecan and enfortumab vedotin in patients with breast cancer.
Paolo Tarantino, MD, highlights strategies related to screening and multidisciplinary collaboration for managing ILD in patients who receive T-DXd.
Pegulicianine-guided breast cancer surgery may allow practices to de-escalate subsequent radiotherapy, says Barbara Smith, MD, PhD.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, spoke about the potential use of pegulicianine-guided breast cancer surgery based on reports from the phase 3 INSITE trial.
Carey Anders, MD, an expert on breast cancer
Related Content