Background: Sex and gender have increasingly been recognized as significant risk factors for many diseases, including dermatological conditions. Historically, sex and gender have often been grouped together as a single risk factor in the scientific literature. However, both may have a distinct impact on disease incidence, prevalence, clinical presentation, severity, therapeutic response, and associated psychological distress.Objectives and project description: The mechanisms that underlie differences in skin diseases between males, females, men, and women remain largely unknown. The specific objectives of this review paper are: To highlight the biological differences between males and females (sex), as well as the sociocultural differences between men and women (gender) and how they impact the integumentary system. To perform a literature review to identify important sex- and gender-related epidemiological and clinical differences for various skin conditions belonging to a range of disease categories and to discuss possible biological and sociocultural factors that could explain the observed differences. To discuss dermatological skin conditions and gender-affirming treatments within the transgender community, a population of individuals who have a gender identity which is different than the gender identity they were assigned at birth.Future impact: With the rising number of individuals that identify as non-binary or transgender within our increasingly diverse communities, it is imperative to recognize gender identity, gender, and sex as distinct entities. By doing so, clinicians will be able to better risk-stratify their patients and select treatments that are most aligned with their values. To our knowledge, very few studies have separated sex and gender as two distinct risk factors within the dermatology literature. Our article also has the potential to help guide future prevention strategies that are patient-tailored rather than using a universal approach.

Background: The incidence of cutaneous melanoma (CM) is increasing at an alarming rate in Canada and elsewhere around the world. Significant regional differences in CM incidence have been identified in Atlantic provinces. The goal of this study is to compare ultraviolet exposure, sun protective behaviours, level of worry and baseline CM knowledge in provinces with a high versus low incidence of CM as well, as between various demographic groups. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in Atlantic provinces between July 2020 and August 2022. All participants aged ≥ 16 years with a completed survey were eligible. Survey responses were summarized using frequency counts, percentages, and means. Two-sided Z-tests for equality of proportions and logistic regression models were used to compare the survey results between geographic and demographic groups. Results: In total, 7861 participants were included (28.0% men; mean age 61.3 years; response rate 28%). Our results (gender- and age-adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) show that high-incidence provinces for CM (Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia) had significantly more sunburns (OR 2.00, 1.72–2.31), total sun exposure (OR 2.05, 1.68–2.50), recreational sun exposure (OR 1.95, 1.61–2.35) and tans (OR 1.77, 1.53–2.05) than individuals in low-incidence provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador). However, individuals in high-incidence provinces displayed more protective behaviors: there were less tanning bed users (OR 0.82, 0.71–0.95), they checked their skin more frequently for new moles (OR 1.26, 1.06–1.51) and practiced more sun protection overall. Additional analyses are presented based on education, income, sexual orientation and gender. Discussion: These findings suggest that future efforts aimed at reducing the CM burden in Atlantic Canada should be tailored for target geographic and/or demographic groups. Limitations: the study participants are not representative of the population in Atlantic Canada due to recruitment strategies.

Gastric cancer is the 5th most common malignancy worldwide, representing ~5–10% of all new cancer cases. Although its incidence is declining, it is estimated that 1 in 98 Canadians will develop gastric cancer in their lifetime. The epidemiology and distribution of gastric cancer throughout Canada, however, remains poorly understood. A retrospective analysis of demographic data across Canada between 1992 and 2010 was performed using 2 population-based cancer registries. The incidence of gastric cancer was examined at the levels of provinces, cities, and postal codes. In addition, 43,955 patients were diagnosed with gastric cancer in Canada between 1992 and 2010; 66% were male and the average age of diagnosis was 68.4 years. The age-adjusted incidence rate was 5.07 cases per 100,000 individuals per year. The incidence decreased over the study period by 30%. High incidence rates were identified in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Quebec. Our study found a significant association between gastric cancer incidence rates and lower socioeconomic status, as well as Hispanic ethnicity. This is the first study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the incidence of gastric carcinoma in Canada, identifying high-risk populations that may benefit from increased primary and secondary prevention.

Introduction: Recent FDA approval of difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), an inhibitor of ornithine decarboxylase for the prevention of neuroblastoma in children, has renewed interest in this medication for the prevention of other cancers including keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs). It has been investigated for cancer chemoprevention, including neoplasms of the colon, breast, and prostate. Methods: We assessed the current body of literature that determines DFMO efficacy and safety in non-melanoma skin cancer prevention. A systematic search of PubMed Central, and Web of Sciences was performed. Results: In this analysis, 12 studies were included evaluating 1618 patients. Most patients were Caucasian 90% (1452/1618) with a mean age of 61 years, and 73% (1214/1618) had previously been diagnosed with KC. For oral DFMO, reduction in KC was significant in 24% (291/1214) of patients. Nonsignificant reduction was observed in 17% (207/1214) of patients. The remaining studies, representing 59% (716/1214) of patients explored DFMO’s pharmacological/biological effects without elucidating its direct impact on KC. Topical DFMO shows modest efficacy in reducing the number of actinic keratosis (AK), as indicated in 4 studies representing 38.12% (154/404) of patients. For patients taking the oral eflornithine, the most frequently reported adverse events included reversible ototoxicity (11% of patients) gastrointestinal disturbances (10.39%). For the topical DFMO transient local cutaneous eruptions were common impacting 28.76% (111/386) of patients. Conclusion: Current evidence highlights the lack of conclusive data supporting the efficacy of oral DFMO, making it difficult to recommend its use. Conversely, topical DFMO demonstrates more promising outcomes in preventing AKs, presenting a potentially useful alternative in select patients.