Background/Objectives: Sex differences in lung cancer incidence and outcomes are well recognized, yet the relative contributions of sex chromosomes and gonadal sex remain incompletely defined. We aimed to disentangle chromosomal complement and hormonal sex in urethane-induced lung tumorigenesis using the Four Core Genotypes mouse model. Methods: Mice (6–8 weeks old) with independently varied chromosomal complement (XX vs. XY) and gonadal sex received urethane (1 g/kg body weight) weekly for 10 weeks and were evaluated after a 20-week latency period. Tumor multiplicity, tumor area, normalized tumor burden, and Ki-67 proliferation indices were quantified histologically. Hepatic Cyp2e1 expression was measured to assess carcinogen bioactivation. Tumor mutations were analyzed by Sanger sequencing. RAS Q61R immunoreactivity and ERK phosphorylation were evaluated to assess oncogenic signaling. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid cellularity was analyzed. Survival was monitored. Statistical analyses tested the main effects of chromosomal complement, gonadal sex, and their interaction. Results: Tumor multiplicity (p = 0.0729), tumor area (p = 0.5302), normalized tumor burden (p = 0.5316), and Ki-67 indices (p = 0.6551) did not differ among genotypes. Hepatic Cyp2e1 expression was comparable across groups (genotype p = 0.076; treatment p = 0.445). Sanger sequencing confirmed canonical Kras Q61R mutations. Anti-RAS (Q61R) immunohistochemistry revealed a significant genotype effect on mutant RAS expression (F(3,23) = 3.48, p = 0.032), with the highest H-scores observed in XYF mice compared with male gonadal genotypes; ERK phosphorylation did not differ. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid analysis revealed increased lymphocytes after urethane exposure without genotype-dependent effects. Survival differed significantly, with XX females demonstrating prolonged survival relative to XY males. Conclusions: Sex influenced survival independently of tumor burden, indicating that sex-associated differences in lung cancer outcomes are likely driven by systemic or microenvironmental factors rather than tumor-intrinsic growth mechanisms.
Babayev et al. (Sun,) studied this question.