International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2026
Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup code of conduct for diversity in gynecological cancer trials: a clinical guide from the Berlin Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup meeting.
Редакционная статьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sehouli Jalid, Bookman Michael A, Harter Philipp, Oza Amit, Brand Alison, Fidalgo Jose Alejandro, Sur Diya Banerjee, Lee Marlene M, Louwen Frank, Zeimet Alain, Mukhopadhyay Asima, O'Donnell Jennifer, Pothuri Bhavana, Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Under-representation of key population groups limits the generalizability, applicability, and equity of evidence generated by gynecologic oncology trials. Building on the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Barcelona consensus, this initiative aimed to translate the principles of diversity into a structured, practice-oriented Code of Conduct spanning all phases of clinical research.
METHODS: As the third step in an iterative Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup consensus process, a Code of Conduct was developed and formally adopted at the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Berlin Meeting. All 33 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup member groups appointed delegates. Preparatory work included a comprehensive literature review, structured meetings of an interdisciplinary scientific committee, and the NOGGO-GCIG-IDEA survey on equity, diversity, and inclusion. A plenary session included individuals with lived experience, clinicians, and researchers from multiple continents. Statements were drafted in focused working groups and refined to consensus.
RESULTS: The resulting Code of Conduct provides actionable guidance across 12 domains: transparent inclusion criteria; standardized data collection, analysis, and reporting; ethnicity considerations; patient-centered communication and consent; reducing the burden of participation; ethics and scientific integrity; data and biospecimen sharing; governance, accountability, and oversight; global collaboration and capacity building; post-trial responsibilities; authorship, acknowledgment, and dissemination; and implementation and continuous improvement. Harmonized collection of diversity variables is recommended to enable international comparison.
CONCLUSION: Diversity is a prerequisite for scientific validity and clinical relevance rather than an optional consideration. By embedding diversity into every phase of research, the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Code of Conduct provides a framework to generate robust, generalizable, and inclusive evidence for the global gynecologic oncology community. The Code is endorsed by the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and will be reviewed biennially.
METHODS: As the third step in an iterative Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup consensus process, a Code of Conduct was developed and formally adopted at the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Berlin Meeting. All 33 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup member groups appointed delegates. Preparatory work included a comprehensive literature review, structured meetings of an interdisciplinary scientific committee, and the NOGGO-GCIG-IDEA survey on equity, diversity, and inclusion. A plenary session included individuals with lived experience, clinicians, and researchers from multiple continents. Statements were drafted in focused working groups and refined to consensus.
RESULTS: The resulting Code of Conduct provides actionable guidance across 12 domains: transparent inclusion criteria; standardized data collection, analysis, and reporting; ethnicity considerations; patient-centered communication and consent; reducing the burden of participation; ethics and scientific integrity; data and biospecimen sharing; governance, accountability, and oversight; global collaboration and capacity building; post-trial responsibilities; authorship, acknowledgment, and dissemination; and implementation and continuous improvement. Harmonized collection of diversity variables is recommended to enable international comparison.
CONCLUSION: Diversity is a prerequisite for scientific validity and clinical relevance rather than an optional consideration. By embedding diversity into every phase of research, the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup Code of Conduct provides a framework to generate robust, generalizable, and inclusive evidence for the global gynecologic oncology community. The Code is endorsed by the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and will be reviewed biennially.