Users Online: 647
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 155-160

Acute leukemia in children: A review of the current Indian data


1 Department of Medical Oncology, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication3-Aug-2016

Correspondence Address:
Ramandeep Singh Arora
Department of Medical Oncology, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-330X.187591

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Acute leukemias are the most common diagnostic group of childhood cancer. This review summarizes the published literature on reported current outcomes of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) from India. Overall survival in ALL ranged from 45% to 81% (commonly >60%) and event-free survival ranged from 41% to 70% (commonly >50%). Outcome data for AML was patchy with varying duration of follow-up, but it can be inferred that 50-80% of treated patients had experienced an event (toxic death, refractory disease or relapse). It is imperative that going forward focus should be on collaborative efforts, which promote treatment of patients on risk-stratified adapted protocols based on local infrastructure, improvement in supportive care and encourage prospective multi-center clinical trials.

Keywords: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, child, India, outcomes, survival


How to cite this article:
Arora RS, Arora B. Acute leukemia in children: A review of the current Indian data. South Asian J Cancer 2016;5:155-60

How to cite this URL:
Arora RS, Arora B. Acute leukemia in children: A review of the current Indian data. South Asian J Cancer [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Dec 16];5:155-60. Available from: http://journal.sajc.org/text.asp?2016/5/3/155/187591


  Introduction Top


Leukemias (>95% of which are acute) constitute the most common diagnostic group of childhood cancers worldwide, and in India. [1],[2] Remarkable progress has been made in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL, which constitute 75-80% of childhood acute leukemias) with 5-year overall survival rate reaching 90% in the high-income countries (HICs). [3] Advances in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), while not so spectacular, have been steady with 5-year overall survival rates approaching 70%. [4] There is limited longitudinal data on childhood cancer survival trends from India. Nevertheless, there is published evidence that there has been progress in the outcomes of childhood ALL In India although the magnitude of progress has been more modest. [5],[6] The data on AML are too scant to make any meaningful conclusions.

The purpose of this review is to summarize the published literature on reported current (defined as publications from the year 2000 onward) outcomes of childhood ALL and AML from India. As recent efforts of collaboration gather pace with prospective multi-center studies being developed under the aegis of the Indian Pediatric Oncology Group (InPOG), such a review is timely and will provide useful baseline information.


  Methods Top


A search of PubMed using keywords "leukemia," "child," and "India" was done independently by both co-authors in October 2015. The search was limited to studies published from the year 2000 onward. Any study, which reported outcomes on survival, related to ALL and AML (excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia) was included. Other outcomes of interest were mortality, relapse, and treatment abandonment. The results of the searches were compared and merged. The reference list of every included study was searched to identify any other eligible studies. Moreover, Google Scholar was searched to identify all citations to the included studies and these were then also assessed for inclusion in this review. The data were extracted and displayed in a tabular form.


  Results Top


Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Nine studies were included (one population-based and the other eight hospital-based), which covered variable time periods (range 1985-2011) [Table 1]. Together, they constituted 3761 children with ALL with some overlap (two studies reported patients from Cancer Institute, Chennai, [5],[7] and two studies reported patients from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences [5],[10]). Median age of children ranged from 5 to 10 years, baseline white blood cell (WBC) count of >50,000/mm 3 was seen in 23-37%, T-cell disease in 21-50%, and central nervous system disease in 2-6% of the patients. Cytogenetic analysis was done only in a small proportion of patients in three studies with TEL-AML1 in 9.4-13.7% and BCR-ABL in 1.8-7% of patients. [8],[11],[13] MCP-841 (and consequently cranial radiotherapy) was used in majority of the patients with absence of risk-group stratification.
Table 1: Summary of studies on childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia from India published after the year 2000

Click here to view


There was selective reporting of outcomes with varying duration of follow-up (generally 5 years). There was also a selection bias with either inclusion of only those families who were "committed," "willing," and "able to remain close," or inclusion of everyone but exclusion of those who abandoned at the stage of survival analysis except in the study by Kulkarni et al. [9] With these caveats, overall survival ranged from 45% to 81% (commonly >60%) and event-free survival ranged from 41% to 70% (commonly >50%) among the hospitals. The overall survival outcomes when including all those diagnosed, regardless of initiation or completion of treatment was more modest 33% in the cohort from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, [9] and 39% in the only report from the population-based cancer registries. [7] Toxic deaths, where reported, ranged from 2% to 13% in induction and 4-24% anytime during treatment. As 83-95% (commonly <90%) of children with ALL were in remission at the end of induction, it implies that around 10% children had an event (mortality or refractory disease) in induction. Relapse rates ranged from 18% to 41% (commonly ~30%).

Acute myeloid leukemia

Six studies were included (one population-based and the other five hospital-based) which covered variable time periods (range 1990-2014) [Table 2] and together they constituted 336 children with AML. The treatment protocols were variable with the use of two or three drug induction. Swaminathan et al. reported a 5-year overall survival of 30% in the Madras Metropolitan Tumor Registry. [7] Although there was selective reporting of outcomes from the hospital-based cohorts with varying duration of follow-up, it can be inferred that 50-80% of treated patients had experienced an event (toxic death, refractory disease or relapse). In addition, a large proportion of patients opted not to take treatment. Toxic deaths overall ranged from 6% to 45% and during induction from 3% to 25% with higher deaths in the three drug induction protocol. Relapse rates ranged from 26% to 48% with higher relapse rate in the two-drug induction protocol.
Table 2: Summary of studies on childhood acute myeloid leukemia from India published after the year 2000

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Based on these results, there is currently a significant gap in the outcomes of ALL and AML in India as compared to that reported from HIC. [3],[4] However, before we further dissect the data and infer from it, it is important to put these results in a national context. According to GLOBOCAN estimates (http://globocan.iarc.fr), there are nearly 25,000 children diagnosed with cancer in India every year and around 9000 of these have leukemia. Even with these conservative estimates, there would be 90,000 children with leukemia in a decade in India.

Our analysis of 3761 children with ALL and 336 children with AML over a time period spanning two to three decades, represents a tiny fraction of the total childhood leukemia burden. One can argue that these "missing patients," many of whom are likely to be from rural or smaller urban areas, are likely to have an outcome worse than that seen in the hospital-based cohorts in this review and probably more closer to that reported from the only population-based study. This happens because hospital-based cohorts would often exclude those who opt not to take treatment or abandon treatment.

What are the outcomes of those children who are treated but the outcome data are missing. Some of this information can be found in the gray literature where institutions publish the abstract of their work. [6],[20] These often do not get published but can provide us useful information. Still the majority of outcome information is not captured. In recognition of the need of data collection, recent efforts of developing online hospital-based cancer registries dedicated to childhood cancer such as IndiaPod (http://indiapod.org) and Pond4kids (http://www.pond4kids.org) as well as funding for data managers will address this gap. [21] Currently, over 8000 newly diagnosed children with cancer are being registered on IndiaPod every year (Jennifer Lowe, personal communication).

Similar to observations from studies in other low-middle income countries (LMIC) and prior studies from India, our results confirm there are broadly three reasons for poor outcome of children with acute leukemias; treatment abandonment, relapses, and toxic deaths. [6],[22],[23]

Treatment abandonment is attributable to a complex interplay of biological, socio-economic and treatment-related factors prevalent in India. [24] Biological differences (a relatively greater proportion of older children, T-cell disease, high WBC count, BCR-ABL, t(1:19) and a lesser proportion of TEL-AML1), host factors (comorbidities such as malnutrition, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, multidrug resistant bacterial infections, and potential pharmacogenomic factors), poor infrastructure (lack of adequate and trained manpower, and poor supportive care), and lack of appropriate uniform national risk-stratified protocols, explain not only the relatively poorer outcome (higher relapses and toxic deaths) in India compared to HIC, but also the variation in outcomes seen within India. In contrast, for AML, no clear biological differences have been demonstrated between India and HIC, and it is likely that optimal treatment and supportive care are crucial to improving outcomes. The pursuit of more intense treatment (and arguably greater clinical remission rates and lesser relapse rates) has to be balanced with increasing toxic deaths as a consequence. There is a suggestion in the AML studies included in this review, that those with three drug induction had a greater response and lower relapse rate but a higher toxic death rate offsetting the advantage gained by the increase in treatment intensity. However, the small number of patients and centers involved prevents any meaningful conclusions.

It is imperative that going forward focus should be on addressing all three issues. Treatment abandonment requires holistic support to families through provision of financial support, lodging, psychological support, transportation, food subsidies, establishment of a parent support group, and a patient tracking system. [25]

Reduction of relapse rates requires adoption of appropriate risk-stratified (including minimal residual disease if feasible) adapted treatment regimens based on the experience, infrastructure, and supportive care available at a center as proposed in recent guidelines. [26],[27] Steroid prephase in ALL should be used for slow cytoreduction, as well as preventing metabolic and infectious complications. In children with AML ineligible for standard intensive regimens due to co-morbidities or financial reasons, outpatient oral metronomic chemotherapy may be used as a bridge to standard therapy with response rates of 89%, including 62% complete remissions. [28]

Reduction of toxic deaths would require systematic improvement in supportive care through the use of local and international insights which include timely prevention and management of tumor lysis syndrome including the use of low-dose rasburicase, [29] aggressive management of hyperleukocytosis including through use of L-asparaginase, [30] addressing malnutrition through upfront nutritional risk assessment and intervention, [31] early detection, prevention and treatment of hepatitis B using lamivudine or entecavir, [32] as well as tuberculosis and other multidrug resistant infections through strict infection control policies, and adequate transfusion support through promotion of voluntary platelet and blood donor registries. [33]

Most importantly, collaborative efforts, which promote treatment of patients on common protocols and encourage prospective multi-center clinical trials, are required. Collaboration among individuals and institutions regionally, nationally, and internationally has been fundamental to the remarkable progress made in Europe and North America in childhood cancer generally, [34] and in ALL and AML specifically where [3],[4] nearly all children with cancer are registered in co-operative groups and majority enter clinical trials. [35],[36],[37] The experiences of collaborative groups in LMIC such as Morocco, Central America, Brazil, and the iBFM are the examples that such groups can be successful and that regional and national collaboration contribute greatly to improve the survival and outcome of childhood cancers. [23] In contrast, there has been a notable lack of prospective multi-center studies from India in relation to all childhood cancers including ALL and AML with one exception. [5] Recent efforts by InPOG on promoting clinical trials and the development of the InPOG-ALL-15-01 trial are welcome developments in this regard. They have the potential of bringing about a quantum leap in childhood cancer outcomes in India, just as the seminal MCP-841 study did for ALL by improving survival rates from <20% to nearly 60%. [5]

Finally, it is important to point out the lack of data from India on late effects. This is particularly relevant for ALL as historically the majority of the patients have received cranial radiotherapy as part of their treatment. Rajendranath et al. have recently reported that 15% of children with ALL (all of who were treated on the MCP-841 protocol with cranial radiation exposure of 18-24 Gy) had neurocognitive impairment. [38] This knowledge and consequent therapeutic adjustments would ensure that with adoption of risk-stratified intensive tailored treatments in future, we improve survival while reducing late effects in children with acute leukemia in India.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Stiller CA, Parkin DM. Geographic and ethnic variations in the incidence of childhood cancer. Br Med Bull 1996;52:682-703.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Arora RS, Eden TO, Kapoor G. Epidemiology of childhood cancer in India. Indian J Cancer 2009;46:264-73.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.
Pui CH, Yang JJ, Hunger SP, Pieters R, Schrappe M, Biondi A, et al. Childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Progress through collaboration. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2938-48.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Zwaan CM, Kolb EA, Reinhardt D, Abrahamsson J, Adachi S, Aplenc R, et al. Collaborative efforts driving progress in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2949-62.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Magrath I, Shanta V, Advani S, Adde M, Arya LS, Banavali S, et al. Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in countries with limited resources; lessons from use of a single protocol in India over a twenty year period [corrected]. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:1570-83. [Erratum in: Eur J Cancer 2007;43:632. Raina, V [added].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kulkarni KP, Arora RS, Marwaha RK. Survival outcome of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in India: A resource-limited perspective of more than 40 years. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2011;33:475-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Swaminathan R, Rama R, Shanta V. Childhood cancers in Chennai, India, 1990-2001: Incidence and survival. Int J Cancer 2008;122:2607-11.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Bajel A, George B, Mathews V, Viswabandya A, Kavitha ML, Srivastava A, et al. Treatment of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in India using a BFM protocol. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008;51:621-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Kulkarni KP, Marwaha RK, Trehan A, Bansal D. Survival outcome in childhood ALL: Experience from a tertiary care centre in North India. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009;53:168-73.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Arya LS, Kotikanyadanam SP, Bhargava M, Saxena R, Sazawal S, Bakhshi S, et al. Pattern of relapse in childhood ALL: Challenges and lessons from a uniform treatment protocol. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2010;32:370-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Yadav SP, Ramzan M, Lall M, Sachdeva A. Childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia outcome in India: Progress on all fronts. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2012;34:324.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Mukhopadhyay A, Gangopadhyay S, Dasgupta S, Paul S, Mukhopadhyay S, Ray UK. Surveillance and expected outcome of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children and adolescents: An experience from Eastern India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2013;34:280-2.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
13.
Gupta A, Kapoor G, Jain S, Bajpai R. Absolute lymphocyte count recovery independently predicts outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Experience from a tertiary care cancer center of a developing country. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2015;37:e143-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Radhakrishnan V, Gupta S, Ganesan P, Rajendranath R, Ganesan TS, Rajalekshmy KR, et al. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A single center experience with Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munster-95 protocol. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2015;36:261-4.  Back to cited text no. 14
  Medknow Journal  
15.
Gupta N, Seth T, Mishra P, Mahapatra M, Rathi S, Kapoor R, et al. Treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in children: Experience from a tertiary care hematology centre in India. Indian J Pediatr 2011;78:1211-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Yadav SP, Ramzan M, Lall M, Sachdeva A. Pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: Final frontier for pediatric oncologists in developing world. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2011;28:647-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.
Philip C, George B, Ganapule A, Korula A, Jain P, Alex AA, et al. Acute myeloid leukaemia: Challenges and real world data from India. Br J Haematol 2015;170:110-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.
Bahl A, Sharma A, Raina V, Kumar L, Bakhshi S, Gupta R, et al. Long-term outcomes for patients with acute myeloid leukemia: A single-center experience from AIIMS, India. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2015;11:242-52.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.
Radhakrishnan V, Thampy C, Ganesan P, Rajendranath R, Ganesan TS, Rajalekshmy KR, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia in children: Experience from tertiary cancer centre in India. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2015. DOI: 10.1007/s12288-015-0591-5.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Kulkarni KP, Marwaha RK. Childhood acute myeloid leukemia: An Indian perspective. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2011;28:257-68.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.
Arora B, Kanwar V. Childhood cancers in India: Burden, barriers, and breakthroughs. Indian J Cancer 2009;46:257-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
22.
Howard SC, Pedrosa M, Lins M, Pedrosa A, Pui CH, Ribeiro RC, et al. Establishment of a pediatric oncology program and outcomes of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in a resource-poor area. JAMA 2004;291:2471-5.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.
Abboud MR, Ghanem K, Muwakkit S. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in low and middle-income countries: Disease characteristics and treatment results. Curr Opin Oncol 2014;26:650-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.
Arora RS, Pizer B, Eden T. Understanding refusal and abandonment in the treatment of childhood cancer. Indian Pediatr 2010;47:1005-10.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.
Jatia S, Aggarwal P, Jayalakshmi KK, Arora B, Chinnaswamy G, Vora T, et al. Predictors of treatment refusal and abandonment (TR and A) and impact of personalized psycho-socioeconomic support in childhood cancer in a tertiary cancer centre in India. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012;59:989.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Hunger SP, Sung L, Howard SC. Treatment strategies and regimens of graduated intensity for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in low-income countries: A proposal. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009;52:559-65.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.
Yeoh AE, Tan D, Li CK, Hori H, Tse E, Pui CH; Asian Oncology Summit 2013. Management of adult and paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in Asia: Resource-stratified guidelines from the Asian Oncology Summit 2013. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:e508-23.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]    
28.
Banavali SD, Biswas G, Nair CN, Kurkure PA, Saikia TK, Parikh PM. PRET: An effective oral protocol for out-patient therapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2004;43:355.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Jayabose S, Kumar V, Dhanabalan R, Rajan P, Rathnam K, Viswanathan TK. Low-dose rasburicase in hematologic malignancies. Indian J Pediatr 2015;82:458-61.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.
Sondhi V, Sharma A, Taneja M, Arora B, Banavali SD. L-asparginase administration reduces white blood cell count and prevents tumor lysis syndrome in children with hyperleukocytic acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Acta Haematol 2015;133:6-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]    
31.
Orgel E, Sposto R, Malvar J, Seibel NL, Ladas E, Gaynon PS, et al. Impact on survival and toxicity by duration of weight extremes during treatment for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A report from the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1331-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]    
32.
Chen FW, Coyle L, Jones BE, Pattullo V. Entecavir versus lamivudine for hepatitis B prophylaxis in patients with haematological disease. Liver Int 2013;33:1203-10.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]    
33.
Jatia S, Arora B, Vora T, Banavali S, Rajadhyaksha S, Patil D, et al. Community platelet donor drives and establishment of a voluntary donor registry: A novel strategy to enhance treatment compliance & outcomes of childhood cancers in LMIC. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2015;62:S203.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Hudson MM, Meyer WH, Pui CH. Progress born from a legacy of collaboration. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2935-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]    
35.
Bleyer WA. The U.S. pediatric cancer clinical trials programmes: International implications and the way forward. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:1439-47.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Stiller CA, Eatock EM. Patterns of care and survival for children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia diagnosed between 1980 and 1994. Arch Dis Child 1999;81:202-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]    
37.
Ablett S, Pinkerton CR; United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG). Recruiting children into cancer trials - Role of the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG). Br J Cancer 2003;88:1661-5.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]    
38.
Rajendranath R, Veeraiah S, Ramesh A, Sagar TG. Late effects of treatment in survivors of childhood cancer from a tertiary cancer center in South India. South Asian J Cancer 2014;3:60-5.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


This article has been cited by
1 Flow Cytometry Based MRD and Its Impact on Survival Outcome in Children and Young Adults with ALL: A Prospective Study from a Tertiary Cancer Centre in Southern India
Soumya Surath Panda,Venkatraman Radhakrishnan,Prasanth Ganesan,Rejiv Rajendranath,Trivadi S. Ganesan,Kamalalayan Raghavan Rajalekshmy,Rajesh Kumar Bhola,Hemlata Das,Tenali Gnana Sagar
Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Neurocognitive and neuroanatomical changes in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with the modified BFM-95 protocol
Sundaramoorthy Chidambaram,Vidhubala Elangovan,Vandana Mahajan,Prasanth Ganesan,Venkatraman Radhakrishnan
Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. 2019; 40(2): 222
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 SIOP PODC adapted risk stratification and treatment guidelines: Recommendations for acute myeloid leukemia in resource-limited settings
Deepak Bansal,Alan Davidson,Eddy Supriyadi,Festus Njuguna,Raul C. Ribeiro,Gertjan J. L. Kaspers
Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Impact of financial support and focussed group counselling on treatment abandonment in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Experience over 22 years from North India
Areesha Alam,Archana Kumar
Psycho-Oncology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 2A/B gene deletions are markers of poor prognosis in Indian children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Manisha Agarwal,Sameer Bakhshi,Sadanand N. Dwivedi,Madhulika Kabra,Rashmi Shukla,Rachna Seth
Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2018; : e27001
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Incidence and Risk Factors for Hypertension During Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Therapy
Payal Malhotra,Gauri Kapoor,Sandeep Jain,Bhawna Garg
Indian Pediatrics. 2018; 55(10): 877
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Apoptosis: A biomarker of high-risk phenotype in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia?
Anudishi Tyagi,Raja Pramanik,Radhika Bakhshi,Sreenivas Vishnubhatla,Sameer Bakhshi
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Pattern of Mitochondrial D-loop Variations and their Relation with Mitochondrial Encoded Genes in Pediatric Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Anudishi Tyagi,Raja Pramanik,Sreenivas Vishnubhatla,Safdar Ali,Radhika Bakhshi,Anita Chopra,Archna Sing,Sameer Bakhshi
Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Cancer epidemiology and the “incidence gap” from non-diagnosis
Scott C. Howard,Catherine G. Lam,Ramandeep S. Arora
Pediatric Hematology Oncology Journal. 2018; 3(4): 75
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Clinicoepidemiological profiles, clinical practices, and the impact of holistic care interventions on outcomes of pediatric hematolymphoid malignancies - A 7-year audit of the pediatric hematolymphoid disease management group at Tata Memorial Hospital
Gaurav Narula,Maya Prasad,Shalini Jatia,PapagudiG Subramanian,Nikhil Patkar,Prashant Tembhare,Dhanlaxmi Shetty,Nehal Khanna,Siddharth Laskar,Tanuja Shet,Sridhar Epari,Seema Kembhavi,Sneha Shah,Sajid Qureshi,Sumeet Gujral,ShripadD Banavali
Indian Journal of Cancer. 2017; 54(4): 609
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and the Role of MRD: A Single Centre Experience from India
Divya Subburaj,Lakshman Vaidyanathan,Ramya Uppuluri,Dhaarani Jayaraman,Revathi Raj
Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3143    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded643    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 11    

Recommend this journal