Background and aim: Over the last decades, the incidence of melanoma has been steadily growing, with 4.2% of the population worldwide affected by cutaneous melanoma (CM) in 2020 and with a higher incidence and mortality in men than in women. We investigated both the risk factors for CM development and the prognostic and predictive factors for survival, stratifying for both sex and gender. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies indexed in PUB-MED, EMBASE, and Scopus until 4 February 2021. We included reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses investigating differences between women and men in CM risk factors and in prognostic and predictive factors for CM survival. Data synthesis: Twenty-four studies were included, and relevant data extracted. Of these, 13 studies concerned potential risk factors, six concerned predictive factors, and five addressed prognostic factors of melanoma. Discussion: The systematic review revealed no significant differences in genetic predisposition to CM between males and females, while there appear to be several gender disparities regarding CM risk factors, partly attributable to different lifestyles and behavioral habits between men and women. There is currently no clear evidence of whether the mutational landscapes of CM differ by sex/gender. Prognosis is justified by a complex combination of phenotypes and immune functions, while reported differences between genders in predicting the effectiveness of new treatments are inconsistent. Overall, the results emerging from the literature reveal the importance of considering the sex/gender variable in all studies and pave the way for including it towards precision medicine. Conclusions: Men and women differ genetically, biologically, and by social construct. Our systematic review shows that, although fundamental, the variable sex/gender is not among the ones collected and analyzed.

Recently, the Italian higher education system has experienced two profound changes: the strong feminization of its academic staff and the implementation of market-based reforms aimed at fostering cost efficiency and economic productivity. Such reforms include the reshaping of the academic career ladder envisaged by the last university reform, the so called Gelmini reform (law 240/2010), and the adoption of a performance-based funding system. Both elements occurred in parallel with a strong cut in turnover. By accessing unique data on recruitment covering the last two decades, which were provided by the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research’s statistical office, this study aims at investigating these changes from a gendered perspective. More specifically, it firstly aims at analyzing if the feminization of the academic staff is due to an effective improvement of gender equality in recruitment or, rather, to demographic dynamics; secondly, it investigates to what extent the recent neo-liberal transformations, and more specifically the reshaping of the career structure combined with the limitations on hiring, has had any implications in terms of women’s recruitment and advancement. The results suggest that the road to gender equality is extremely slow and non-linear. The introduction, with the Gelmini reform, of the new fixed-term assistant professor has tightened female access to the tenure track. Moreover, female recruitment remained substantially unchanged over the period among associate and full professors, thus suggesting that the feminization of the academic staff is not due to an effective improvement of gender equality in recruitment, but also to demographic dynamics, such as the retirement of men who are concentrated in the older cohorts.

We analyzed the inclusion of sex and/or gender (S/G) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) clinical studies, through inspecting ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) and the mention of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) on a specific subgroup, namely oral cavity, larynx and oropharynx. Only 5% of HNC studies mention S/G as a planned analytical variable. Proportionally more observational studies treated S/G as an analytical variable than interventional studies (10% vs 5%, P-value ≤ 0.001), 8% of studies that mentioned S/G involved more than 100 subjects while 4% less than 100 (P-value ≤ 0.001). In randomized protocols, S/G was mentioned more in studies with a planned sample of more than 100 patients and including HPV status (P-value < 0.05). Small controlled studies have lower mention of S/G as an analytical variable than uncontrolled studies (4% and 10%, respectively among studies with less than 100 subjects). Significantly greater mention of S/G as an analytical variable is observed in controlled and randomized studies with a sample size greater than 100 subjects. HPV was mentioned in only 18% of oral cavity-larynx-oropharynx studies. Interventional studies do not regularly account for S/G during HNC study design. Thus, although fundamental, in studies concerning HNC the S/G variable is often not considered. In trials published in scientific journals (P-value = 0.01) and in more recent clinical trials (P-value = 0.002), S/G is taken more into account suggesting an increasing awareness on its importance. However, the need to systematically include S/G in study design clearly emerges, to better highlight sex-related differences in disease incidence and prognosis and best imbue science and medicine with the proper biological and cultural differences.

This paper investigates the gender promotion gap in a particular highly skilled profession, that of physicians. The following analyses are based on a dataset of more than a thousand doctors working in Italy, a country in which hospitals play a central role in the national health care system. Given a three-step career ladder—first level, vice, and head—this research finds that women are 8% less likely than men to be promoted from the first level to vice, whereas no significant disadvantage is found in the promotion from vice to head. This suggests that the vertical segregation is due more to a sticky floors mechanism than to a glass ceiling effect. Moreover, no motherhood penalty occurs. Private organizations appear to be more gender equal than public ones and similar, albeit weaker, findings come from the analysis of the specialties, cautiously suggesting that the male-dominated area of surgery is more gender equal than the female-dominated area of medicine. These findings point out that women in highly skilled professions may encounter fewer obstacles to promotion than in the general labor market. Furthermore, they may encounter fewer obstacles within the most competitive organizations and specialty areas than across the profession in general. This is not, however, because of a greater number of opportunities, but because they represent a highly selected and career-oriented population. These results shed light on the costs of such achievement for women, both in terms of effort and in terms of equality among women themselves.

Women’s presence in academia has sharply increased in recent years, but gender inequalities in career progression persist. Italy makes no exception to this trend as different studies on the promotion gap to associate and to full professors have suggested. However, no measure of the adjusted gender differential in the previous steps of the career, that is in the transition from the post-doc to the assistant professor position, has been provided so far. This paper aims to fulfill this gap by means of an original, longitudinal, and multi-source dataset on the Italian academic population which has allowed to measure the female disadvantage in recruitment by controlling for a large set of confounding characteristics including individual productivity and, most especially, contextual factors, which have been under-explored so far. Results suggest that women face a small adjusted penalty, of around 3–4%, in academic recruitment. However, when disentangling the analyses by scientific field, strong differences emerge, with the gap reaching a maximum of − 10% in physics while being non-significant in many SSH. Within the STEMM, the life sciences, driven by medicine and biology, appear more gender unequal than many hard sciences. Moreover, a growing number of female full professors in the sub-field and working in a department with good financial resources represent two factors that have a moderate role in reducing the gap. All in all, this work sheds light on the importance of organizational and institutional factors in explaining the gender gap thus calling for structural interventions to make universities more inclusive towards women.