Across the wide range of clinical conditions, there exists a sex imbalance where biological females are more prone to autoimmune diseases and males to some cancers. These discrepancies are the combinatory consequence of lifestyle and environmental factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and oncogenic viruses, as well as other intrinsic biological traits including sex chromosomes and sex hormones. While the emergence of immuno-oncology (I/O) has revolutionised cancer care, the efficacy across multiple cancers may be limited because of a complex, dynamic interplay between the tumour and its microenvironment (TME). Indeed, sex and gender can also influence the varying effectiveness of I/O. Androgen receptor (AR) plays an important role in tumorigenesis and in shaping the TME. Here, we lay out the epidemiological context of sex disparity in cancer and then review the current literature on how AR signalling contributes to such observation via altered tumour development and immunology. We offer insights into AR-mediated immunosuppressive mechanisms, with the hope of translating preclinical and clinical evidence in gender oncology into improved outcomes in personalised, I/O-based cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Following the development of gender medicine in the past 20 years, more recently in the field of oncology an increasing amount of evidence suggests gender differences in the epidemiology of cancers, as well as in the response and toxicity associated with therapies. In a gender approach, critical issues related to sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations must also be considered.
METHODS: A working group of opinion leaders approved by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has been set up with the aim of drafting a shared document on gender oncology. Through the \'consensus conference\' method of the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) variant, the members of the group evaluated statements partly from the scientific literature and partly produced by the experts themselves [good practice points (GPPs)], on the following topics: (i) Healthcare organisation, (ii) Therapy, (iii) Host factors, (iv) Cancer biology, and (v) Communication and social interventions. Finally, in support of each specific topic, they considered it appropriate to present some successful case studies.
RESULTS: A total of 42 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 50 recommendations were extracted. Panel participants were given the opportunity to propose additional evidence from studies not included in the research results, from which 32 statements were extracted, and to make recommendations not derived from literature such as GPPs, four of which have been developed. After an evaluation of relevance by the panel, it was found that 81 recommendations scored >7, while 3 scored between 4 and 6.9, and 2 scored below 4.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus and the document compiled thereafter represent an attempt to evaluate the available scientific evidence on the theme of gender oncology and to suggest standard criteria both for scientific research and for the care of patients in clinical practice that should take gender into account.

Among neoplastic diseases, breast cancer (BC) is one of the most influenced by gender. Despite common misconceptions associating BC as a women-only disease, BC can also occur in men. Additionally, transgender individuals may also experience BC. Genetic risk factors play a relevant role in BC predisposition, with important implications in precision prevention and treatment. The genetic architecture of BC susceptibility is similar in women and men, with high-, moderate-, and low-penetrance risk variants; however, some sex-specific features have emerged. Inherited high-penetrance pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the strongest BC genetic risk factor. BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are more commonly associated with increased risk of female and male BC, respectively. Notably, BRCA-associated BCs are characterized by sex-specific pathologic features. Recently, next-generation sequencing technologies have helped to provide more insights on the role of moderate-penetrance BC risk variants, particularly in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM genes, while international collaborative genome-wide association studies have contributed evidence on common low-penetrance BC risk variants, on their combined effect in polygenic models, and on their role as risk modulators in BRCA1/2 PV carriers. Overall, all these studies suggested that the genetic basis of male BC, although similar, may differ from female BC. Evaluating the genetic component of male BC as a distinct entity from female BC is the first step to improve both personalized risk assessment and therapeutic choices of patients of both sexes in order to reach gender equality in BC care. In this review, we summarize the latest research in the field of BC genetic predisposition with a particular focus on similarities and differences in male and female BC, and we also discuss the implications, challenges, and open issues that surround the establishment of a gender-oriented clinical management for BC.