Tessa Pelino
Historical exclusion of women from drug development trials has created a male-centric dosing regimen that consistently fails. A pink tax women pay with their own bodies, costing them increased toxicity and reduced treatment efficacy. A disparity researchers argue could be urgently corrected with a sex adjusted dosing formula (SABSA) and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).
The century old standard of chemotherapy dosing based on Body Surface Area (BSA) is actively failing half of the population. Modern chemotherapy is asystemic administration of cytotoxic agents that inhibitrapid cell proliferation, and its development has evolved almost exclusively around the male body.1 This sex-related bias dates to a 1977 FDA recommendation to exclude women of childbearing age from all clinical trials following the thalidomide tragedy.2 This policy, steeped in an era of patriarchal mindsets, ensured that women’s unique physiological profiles remained unstudied during the golden age of drug discovery. Yet even today, contemporary meta-analyses show that female enrollment for FDA cancer trials still stalls at roughly 35%.3 This ongoing disparity underscores an unfortunate reality: drug development and dosage protocols are structured for male metabolisms.
Ignoring the distinct physiological and pharmacokinetic differences between men and women has led to higher toxicities and suboptimal outcomes reported with 20% of chemotherapeutic drugs for women.1 Even more alarming, when dosed according to BSA, women often face 15-25% higher circulating drug concentrations in serum than their male counterparts, directly correlating to the elevated toxicity rates and adverse reactions frequently reported in female patients. Writing in Chemotherapy, Seydoux et al., argue that mitigating this inequity requires integrating a Sex-Adjusted Body Surface Area (SABSA) model which addresses sex-specific metabolic differences, coupled with therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to maximize both safety and efficacy.1
BSA calculations are currently and universally used in clinical oncology, having been optimized from male participants under the assumption that drug clearance is proportional to total body size.4 This model inputs height and weight to estimate a lean muscle mass ratio and liver volume that correlates a systemic drug elimination rate.1 However, this one-size-fits-men approach ignores fundamental differences in the biology between sexes, and consistently shows a poor correlation between initial dosing concentrations and adequate clearance from the female body. Crucially, women on average have around 10% higher body fat than men (350 g/kg versus 250 g/kg in men), resulting in a higher fat to lean muscle mass ratio.3 Thus, although lean mass is a successful estimator of drug clearance in men, dosing women based on those parameters ignores their higher percentage of metabolically inactive fat and inaccurately predicts their functional muscle mass and liver clearance capacity.
Sex-specific hormones also interact with metabolic organs like the liver and kidney in drastically different ways. For example, the estrogen family’s interaction with hepatocytes not only stimulates various growth factors but also helps drive the sexual dimorphism of liver enzymes, directly impacting the liver’s efficiency in eliminating estrogen and other compounds from the blood.5 Beyond hormonal regulatory loops, anatomical variations further dictate how a drug is dispersed once it enters circulation. Females possess a higher plasma percentage in blood, influencing the perfusion rate of oxygen and other nutrients into bodily tissue that can alter drug delivery rates.6 Ultimately, these examples only represent a small fraction of the vast landscape of sex-specific interactions that current clinical dosing models fail to consider (Figure 1).7

Figure 1 | Infographic of Sex-Specific Influences on Pharmacokinetics (PK). Hennig, M.,7 illustrates a variety of sex-specific interactions that influence an individual’s overall metabolic profile. Differences outlined for cardiac output, GI absorption via transient time and gastric pH, volume of fat distribution, predominant liver metabolic enzymes, and immune cell clearance. Adapted from Fig. 17
Diving deeper into the molecular level of sex dimorphism, many drug metabolizing enzymes and intracellular transport proteins exhibit sex-specific expression.8 For example, the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) gene encodes for a major drug metabolizer DPD that catabolizes over 80% of 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), a chemotherapy commonly prescribed for breast, colorectal, stomach and pancreatic cancers.9-10 While germline mutations in DPYD are established drivers of 5-FU toxicity, recent pharmacogenomic (PGx) studies show that women tend to exhibit lower DPD activity comparable to mutant DPYD phenotypes, and have poorer 5-FU clearance.1 This genetic disparity explains why elevated toxicity rates of 5-FU are disproportionately reported for women.11
Another culprit is the sexual dimorphic nature of liver transcriptomes, defined by the complete set of RNA molecules governing protein abundance that are differentially expressed in liver cells. Yang et al., researching liver transcriptomic profiles identified 77 drug metabolizing enzyme and transporter (DMETs) genes that display significant sex-explicit expression patterns.8 These findings validate known PGx disparities in the baseline expression of the DMET powerhouse cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes between males and females which metabolize roughly 70-80% of all clinically available drugs.12 Specifically, CYP1A2, CYP2D6 and CYP2E1 are reported to be expressed significantly higher in males. Altogether, female livers don’t rely on the same proportion of drug metabolizers as males, further vindicating how anatomical, hormonal and genetic variance are major determinants to observed drug efficacy and toxicity rate disparities.
Alleviating this biological pink tax will require us to go back to the drawing board and stop treating the female body like it’s a “smaller man”. An immediate action is to implement the SABSA model in place of the traditional BSA. Ironically, the BSA scale isn’t only failing women but also consistently underdosing men who encounter higher rates of relapse.1 The SABSA is a low-cost refinement that modulates current BSA dosing recommendations to increase by ~10% for males and decrease by ~10% for females to better reflect metabolic baselines.
While clinical validation of SABSA is urgently worth pursuing, the long-term goal for the next century of cancer therapeutics will require regulating equal representation of both sexes in all drug trials at the initial stage of development. Furthermore, as genetic breakthroughs reveal the vast complexity of patient-specific drug interactions, TDM is a primary safeguard to ensure drug selection and dosage regimens are tailored to an individual’s unique metabolic profile. After all, if precision medicine is built on leveraging cancer genetics for personalized treatment, we can no longer treat biological sex as a negligible variable when developing therapeutics.
References
1 Seydoux, C. et al. Importance of Sex-Dependent Differences for Dosing Selection and Optimization of Chemotherapeutic Drugs. Chemotherapy 70, 92–101 (2025).
2 Kim, J. H. & Scialli, A. R. Thalidomide: the tragedy of birth defects and the effective treatment of disease. Toxicol Sci 122, 1–6 (2011).
3 Özdemir, B. C., Csajka, C., Dotto, G.-P. & Wagner, A. D. Sex Differences in Efficacy and Toxicity of Systemic Treatments: An Undervalued Issue in the Era of Precision Oncology. J Clin Oncol 36, 2680–2683 (2018).
4 Beer, H. Is prescribing anticancer drugs by body surface area still relevant? Hospital Pharmacy Europe https://hospitalpharmacyeurope.com/clinical-zones/oncology/is-prescribing-anticancer-drugs-by-body-surface-area-still-relevant/ (2025).
5 Kasarinaite, A., Sinton, M., Saunders, P. T. K. & Hay, D. C. The Influence of Sex Hormones in Liver Function and Disease. Cells 12, 1604 (2023).
6 Soldin, O. P. & Mattison, D. R. Sex Differences in Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Clin Pharmacokinet 48, 143–157 (2009).
7 Hennig, M. Sex-Based Differences in the Biodistribution of Nanoparticles and Their Effect on Hormonal, Immune, and Metabolic Function. Pharma Excipients https://www.pharmaexcipients.com/news/sex-based-differences-biodistribution-nanoparticles/ (2022).
8 Yang, L. & Li, Y. Sex Differences in the Expression of Drug-Metabolizing and Transporter Genes in Human Liver. J Drug Metab Toxicol 3, (2012).
9 Evans, W. E. Pharmacogenetics of Thiopurine S-Methyltransferase and Thiopurine Therapy. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring 26, 186 (2004).
10 Alzahrani, S. M., Al Doghaither, H. A., Al‑Ghafari, A. B. & Pushparaj, P. N. 5‑Fluorouracil and capecitabine therapies for the treatment of colorectal cancer (Review). Oncology Reports 50, 1–16 (2023).
11 Prado, C. M. M. et al. Body Composition as an Independent Determinant of 5-Fluorouracil–Based Chemotherapy Toxicity. Clin Cancer Res 13, 3264–3268 (2007).
12 Grangeon, A. et al. Protein Levels of 16 Cytochrome P450s and 2 Carboxyl Esterases Using Absolute Quantitative Proteomics: CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 Are the Most Abundant Isoforms in Human Liver and Intestine, Respectively. Pharmaceuticals 18, 1789 (2025).









