Background: The sex-neutral language used in preclinical and clinical research intends to be inclusive of both the female and the male population, but the practice of data pooling prevents the detection of the impact of sex on cancer biology and response to medications and treatment. This study aimed to examine the consideration of sex as biological variable in the evaluation of radiation therapy in preclinical and clinical studies. Methods: Preclinical and clinical studies published over a 12-month period were reviewed for the reporting of cells, animal or patient sex and the inclusion of sex as a biological variable in both study design and data analysis. Results: A total of 321 articles met the inclusion criteria: 41 (13%) preclinical and 280 (87%) clinical studies. Two articles reported separate outcome data for males and females. Where the sex of participants was stated (230/280 (82%), 81% reported a larger number of male participants, compared to females. Less than half (45%) of studies used sex as a variable in data analysis. Sex disparity was not dependent on study location but may be more prominent in certain cancer sites. In preclinical studies, sex was at best stated in those reporting on animals (48% of studies). Conclusion: Referring to a radiotherapy cancer patient, the literature is female inclusive, but a gap does exist when it comes to consideration of sex in data analysis. The pooled analysis of female and male data could introduce statistical biases and prevent the identification of key sex-specific biological subtilities that do affect radiation responses.