Translate this page into:
Wilms Tumor in India: A Systematic Review
*Corresponding author: Shyam Srinivasan, DM, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India. srinivas.shyam@gmail.com
This article was originally published by Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
Abstract
Abstract
Background Cure rates of childhood malignancies are inferior in India compared with upper-middle-income countries. There is paucity of quality data addressing outcome of childhood Wilms tumor (WT) from India. This systematic review was conducted to assess the disease trends, treatment strategies, and outcome indicators in WT across India.
Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS database, and additionally screened International Society of Pediatric Oncology conference abstracts. Data concerning WT or nephroblastoma published from India were extracted.
Results A total of 17 studies containing 1,170 patients were included in this review. Ninety-four percent of the studies were published after the year 2010. Advanced stage (III and IV) disease was seen in 46% of included patients. In seven studies, patients underwent a pretreatment biopsy before commencement of therapy. A hybrid approach consisting of “surgery first” in a selected subset and “neo-adjuvant chemotherapy” in all others was the most common treatment strategy adopted in half of the studies. The overall survival ranged between 48 and 89%. Key prognostic factors influencing survival across studies included increased tumor volume, metastatic disease, and unfavorable histology. Nonrelapse mortality (2.7–8.5%) was noted to be high.
Conclusion Substantial proportion of children with WT from India present with advanced stages of the disease. Despite several limitations, the current systematic review showed a modest survival among Indian children with WT. Adopting strategies through collaboration to ensure early access to expert care along with involvement of social support team to improve compliance may further improve survival of WT in India.
Keywords
Introduction
Wilms tumor (WT) is one of the major success stories in pediatric oncology.1 Most of the data pertaining to WT has emerged from two major cooperative groups, SIOP (International Society of Pediatric Oncology) and COG (Children's Oncology Group), which have shown improved outcomes over the years with intensive multimodality treatment. The emphasis has been on accurate histological diagnosis and risk stratification, tailored surgical resection, and timely radiotherapy and chemotherapy. While outcomes of localized favorable histology (FH) and that of metastatic WT in developed countries have exceeded 90 and 80%, respectively, the outcomes in lower and middle-income countries (LMICs) and low-income countries (LICs) are relatively inferior.12345 Several factors, including poor access to care, delayed diagnosis and referral, treatment abandonment, treatment related mortality, malnutrition, and lack of expertise in local management are considered to be the contributing factors.4678 The purpose of this systematic review is to provide a succinct overview of the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, outcomes, and prognostic variables in WT across India, based on published literature.
Materials and Methods
We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS database for published studies on WT in India. A literature search was performed using text words “Wilms tumor,” “nephroblastoma,” and “India.” Articles published from time of inception of database till 31/08/2021 were included. In addition, studies published as SIOP conference abstracts from the year 2011 to 2020 were screened for data regarding WT published from India. Studies that were published languages other than English and studies containing less than 10 subjects were excluded. Literature search was as per preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.
Study Selection
The review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts yielded by the search against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full reports for all titles and abstracts were obtained if they appeared to meet the inclusion criteria and also in case of any uncertainty. Two reviewers independently extracted the data to reduce the bias and errors in data extraction. In case of disagreements, a third reviewer was consulted for a final decision. The data obtained were integrated into evidence tables and were verified by the two reviewers.
Data Items
The information that was extracted from each study included the surname of first author, year of study, mean age with range, number of patients, sex ratio, symptomatology, diagnostic approach (biopsy, imaging modality), laterality of disease, data regarding biopsy, staging of disease, timing of surgery, chemotherapy backbone, event-free survival, overall survival, and prognostic factors.
Results
Literature Search
A total of 826 studies and 14 SIOP conference abstracts were obtained after the initial search. After removing duplicates and screening the tile and abstract of the publications, full text of 29 studies were selected for eligibility and 25 could be retrieved. From these, 6 studies included less than 10 patients, 2 studies were duplicates, 1 study did not include WT, 2 studies did not have required data, and 1 study included patients outside India. All these 12 studies were subsequently excluded. Of the 14 SIOP abstracts, 10 abstracts were excluded because of less than 10 patients being enrolled (n = 3), desired outcomes not being available (n = 2), studies being subsequently published (n = 3), and study population overlap (n = 2). Eventually, 17 studies were included in the systematic review. The PRISMA flowchart is shown in Fig. 1.
Quality of Studies
The Newcastle-Ottawa scale adapted for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of included studies (Supplemental Table S1, available online only).9 The quality of the study was unsatisfactory in 3 of the 16 studies included in the systematic review.
Characteristics of the Studies
Of the 16 studies, 2 (13%) were prospective, 1 (6%) was ambispective, and 13 (81%) were retrospective. The salient features of the studies are summarized in Table 1.
|
Study |
Type of publication |
Study period |
n |
Mean age (mo) |
M:F |
Type of study |
Baseline biopsy or FNAC |
Stage (I/II/III/IV/V) |
Timing of surgery |
Histological classification |
Chemotherapy backbone |
Toxic deaths/ NRM |
EFS |
OS |
Poor prognostic factors and other comments |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I |
II |
III |
IV |
V |
|||||||||||||||
|
Qureshi et al 202010 |
Research article |
2015–19 |
113 |
42.5 |
1.6:1 |
Prospective |
Biopsy |
16% |
18% |
24% |
35% |
Hybrid |
LR: 4% IR: 78% HR: 18% |
SIOP |
5.3% |
3-year EFS: 79.6 (95%CI: 71.9–87.2)% |
3-year OS: 81.8(74.1–85.6)% |
Lymph node positivity, stage of disease |
|
|
Jeevarathi and Vadivelu 2020 |
Research article |
2008–11 |
156 |
NA |
1.7:1 |
Retrospective + prospective |
Biopsy |
19% |
39% |
29% |
6% |
6% |
NA |
FH: 98.7% UH: 1.3% |
NA |
NA |
Stage I & II DFS: 97% Stage III DFS: 70% |
NA |
LOH 1p, LOH 16q |
|
Jain et al 202012 |
Research article |
2000–12 |
36 |
56.2 |
1.8:1 |
Retrospective |
FNAC |
– |
– |
– |
100% |
– |
Hybrid |
NA |
AIIMS-WT-99 |
<2.7% |
4-year EFS: 42.4% (33.4–67.6) |
4-year OS: 48% (41.3–75.9) |
Liver metastases, poor response to chemotherapy |
|
Sachdeva et al 201913 |
Conference paper |
2005–18 |
71 |
30 |
NA |
Retrospective |
NA |
20% |
20% |
43% |
10% |
8% |
Hybrid |
FH: 82.9% UH: 13.1% |
Before 2013: UKCCSG From 2014: SIOP/ COG |
NA |
5-year EFS: 79.4% |
5-year OS: 87.4% |
Upfront chemotherapy, UFH, Stage III/IV |
|
Wani et al 2019 |
Research article |
2010–15 |
23 |
48 |
1:1 |
Retrospective |
Biopsy (in 48% patients) |
22% |
4% |
44% |
22% |
4% |
Hybrid |
NA |
SIOP and COG |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
Jain et al 2019 |
Conference paper |
1998–2018 |
40 |
36 |
2.3:1 |
Retrospective |
No |
27% |
32% |
35% |
20% |
5% |
(see note)a |
NA |
NA |
NA |
4-year EFS Stage I:67–83% II: 42–71% III: 29–42% |
NA |
Upfront surgery associated with spillage, mortality and tumor recurrence Abandonment rates: 11–31%. |
|
John et al 2018 |
Research article |
2004–14 |
59 |
58 |
1.4:1 |
Retrospective |
Biopsy |
38% |
16% |
9% |
30% |
10% |
Upfront chemotherapy |
LR: 7%; IR: 86% HR: 7% |
SIOP |
8.5% |
3-year EFS: 73% |
3-year OS: 80% |
Stage III and IV |
|
Rahiman et al 201817 |
Conference paper |
2005–16 |
200 |
33.5 |
NA |
Retrospective |
NA |
30% |
36% |
14% |
17% |
3% |
NA |
NA |
SIOP |
7.2% |
3-year EFS: 78.5% |
3-year OS: 78.5% |
Large tumor volume, Stage IV/V disease Undernutrition Abandonment rates: 20% |
|
Kajal et al 201718 |
Research paper |
2008–12 |
31 |
40 |
0.8:1 |
Retrospective |
NA |
36% |
55% |
9% |
4.5% |
Hybrid |
Anaplasia: 3.2% |
NWTS |
NA |
5-year EFS: 87.3% |
NA |
NA |
|
|
Verma and Kumar 2016 |
Research paper |
2005–14 |
108 |
33 |
4:1 |
Retrospective |
No |
21% |
30% |
35% |
10% |
4% |
Hybrid |
Anaplasia: 11% |
NWTS |
5.5% |
5-year EFS: 73% |
5-year OS:74% |
Stage III and IV |
|
Agarwala et al 201420 |
Research paper |
1999–2000 |
11 |
Range: 6–30 |
2.7:1 |
Prospective |
No |
– |
– |
– |
– |
100% |
Upfront chemotherapy |
FH: 100% |
AIIMS-WT-99 |
NA |
5-year EFS: 31% |
8 of 11 alive at follow-up |
NA |
|
Rastogi et al 201421 |
Conference paper |
1990–2006 |
147 |
40 |
1.4:1 |
Retrospective |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Hybrid |
FH: 98.6% |
NWTS |
NA |
10-year RFS: 84.7% |
10-year OS: 89% |
NA |
|
Guruprasad et al 201322 |
Research paper |
2003–10 |
61 |
40 |
0.9:1 |
Retrospective |
No |
28% |
16% |
38% |
15% |
3% |
Upfront surgery |
FH: 72% Anaplasia:16.4% |
NWTS |
NA |
5-year EFS: 83.3% |
5-year OS: 85.2% |
UFH |
|
Yadav et al 201323 |
Letter to the editor |
2005–10 |
22 |
34 |
0.8:1 |
Retrospective |
NA |
7% |
33% |
44% |
4% |
11% |
NA |
FH: 74% UFH: 26% |
UK WT3 |
NA |
5-year EFS: 82% (FH) 50% (UFH) |
5-year EFS/OS: 73%/77% |
UFH |
|
Trehan et al 201224 |
Research paper |
1999–2003 |
20 |
20 |
2.3:1 |
Retrospective |
FNAC |
20% |
65% |
15% |
– |
– |
Upfront chemotherapy |
FH: 100% |
SIOP 6 protocol |
NA |
NA |
75% |
NA |
|
Chander et al 201125 |
Conference paper |
2006–09 |
52 |
51 |
2.2:1 |
Retrospective |
NA |
78% |
22% |
NA |
NA |
FH: 77% UFH: 23% |
3 drug regimen (VAC regimen) |
NA |
DFS: 37.8 mo |
NA |
NA |
||
|
Qureshi et al 200726 |
Research article |
1997–2000 |
20 |
Range: 9–144 |
0.8:1 |
Retrospective |
Biopsy (selective) |
50% |
20% |
20% |
5% |
5% |
Upfront surgery |
FH: 90% UFH: 20% |
NWTS |
NA |
30% recurrence |
NA |
NA |
Abbreviations: DFS, disease-free survival; EFS, event-free survival; FH, favorable histology; FNAC, fine-needle aspiration cytology; IR, intermediate risk; HR, high risk; LOH, loss of heterozygosity; LR, low risk; M: F, male: female; NA, not available; NRM, nonrelapse mortality; NWTS, —; OS, overall survival; SIOP, International Society of Pediatric Oncology; UFH, unfavorable histology; VAC, Vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide.
Upfront surgery was performed between 1999 and 2007 and Upfront chemotherapy was given between 2008 and 2018.
Patient Characteristics
A total of 1,170 patients were included from the 17 studies.1011121314151617181920212223242526 Data on presenting symptoms was gathered from eight studies,1314161819222526 among which abdominal lump was the most common. Abdominal pain, hypertension, and hematuria were other symptoms seen in 19 to 39%, 8 to 42%, and 4 to 16%, respectively. Systemic symptoms, namely fever, were noted in 26 to 30% of patients.141626 Median duration of symptoms prior to presentation at place of care varied between 28 and 35 days.1926 Presence of concomitant congenital anomalies/syndromic associations was noted in three studies that was 3.7, 6.6, and 16%, respectively.131922
All studies employed ultrasonography (US) or computed tomography (CT) to assess locoregional extent and chest radiograph or CT chest to screen for distant metastases. However, the categorical proportion of patients who underwent either US/CT abdomen/CT chest was available in three studies.101619 Measurements on tumor volume at baseline were available in two studies, who observed a reduction from mean volume of 523 mL and 481.7 mL to 208 mL, and 109 mL, respectively, following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.1617 Data on baseline staging was available in 16 studies of which 1 study each included only metastatic patients and bilateral tumors (Stage V).1220 Of the remaining 14 studies, the proportion of patients with stage III and IV disease ranged between 9–55% and 6-30%, respectively. Overall, the mean incidence of advance stage disease, i.e. stage III and IV combined, was 45% (95%CI: 37–54%). Mean incidence of bilateral WT was 5.8% (95%CI: 4–7.6%).
Information on histological subtypes was available in 13 studies. The pathological subclassification and usage of terminologies were noted to be congruent with the treatment backbone (SIOP vs. NWTS) in eight (62%) of these studies.1016202122232426 Overall, high risk/anaplasia/unfavorable histology was reported to be 14% (95%CI: 8–20%) from these studies.
Treatment Strategy
Patients in seven studies had pretreatment histological confirmation prior to initiation of therapy by way of fine-needle aspiration (FNA)1224 or biopsy.101114162126 Data on treatment modality was available from 13 studies and differed across centers. Preoperative chemotherapy and upfront surgery were the standard practice in three (23%) and two (15%) studies, respectively, while remaining seven (54%) studies used a hybrid approach utilizing the benefits of both the approaches: “surgery first” in a selected subset and “neo-adjuvant chemotherapy” in others. One study employed the former strategy for a period of 8 years and switched to the latter after 2008 until present.15
Among the studies where information on chemotherapy was available (n = 15), International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP)-based protocol was used in four (27%) studies, National Wilms Tumor Study Group/Children's Oncology Group (NWTSG/COG)-based in five (33%) studies, UK WT3 regimen in one (6%) study, and institutional-based protocol in three (20%) studies. Two (13%) studies used different protocols at different time points.1314
Outcome
Nonrelapse mortality attributable to toxic deaths was 2.7 to 8.5%.1012161719 Surgical complications were reported in six studies151618192024 and varied between 11 and 29% of which postoperative ileus and sepsis were most common. Kajal et al noted a high incidence of intestinal perforation (13%), while Verma and Kumar attributed 50% of toxic deaths to postoperative complications.1819 Jain et al noted a higher incidence of intraoperative tumor spillage, mortality, and tumor recurrence among patients who underwent upfront surgery.15 Survival estimates for the individual studies are summaries in Table 1. Regional nodal disease, increased tumor volume, metastatic disease, and unfavorable histology were noted to be adversely influencing survival, in the above studies.
Discussion
WT is the most common childhood renal tumor. While the prevalence of unilateral WT is reported to be marginally higher in girls in Western literature,27 the present review shows a higher male prevalence reflecting the existing gender bias in health-seeking behavior.28 Though most of the studies did not report on the duration of symptoms, with the available literature from two studies, patients seem to be symptomatic for a prolonged duration (>4 weeks) at the time of presentation. Obtaining a specimen for histology prior to commencing treatment was practiced in 64% of the included studies. Data from the UK-W3 trial and SIOP WT 2001 trial have shown needle biopsy to be safe and not associated with increased local relapse.2930 Similar observations have been made on two Indian studies that noted no association between increased tumor rupture, needle tract seeding, or tendency to relapse with a baseline biopsy.3132 Two centers have employed FNA cytology1224 instead of biopsy for establishing diagnosis, which has a comparable sensitivity and specificity.33
The preferred practice in approximately half of the included studies combined the treatment philosophies of both NWTSG/COG and SIOP. The UK-W3 trial evaluated the role of preoperative chemotherapy in achieving a favorable stage distribution and noted that approximately 20% fewer children received doxorubicin or radiation (because of downstaging by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy).30 Of note, none of the 102 patients who received preoperative chemotherapy had a tumor rupture.30 In this review, the proportion of patients operated upfront varied between 45 and 68%. While the precise reason for selecting certain patients for upfront surgery and deferring surgery in others is unclear from these studies, one study looked at leveraging the benefits of both these approaches in a prospective manner in pediatric renal tumors.32 Based on the presence of image-defined risk factors, the study attempted at objectively classifying tumors at high-risk of tumor rupture and slotting them for delayed resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. With this approach the authors had noticed a postoperative complication rate comparable to SIOP and COG reports32 with an excellent survival in the immediate surgery group and a comparable survival in the delayed surgery group. Another factor influencing surgical decision is the baseline tumor size. Several Indian studies have noted the median baseline volume at presentation to be ranging between 480 and 520 mL and the presurgery volume (post neoadjuvant chemotherapy) to be ranging between 200 and 300 mL.161732 Strikingly, patients treated on SIOP 2001 also had a similar median baseline tumor volume of 570 mL but showed an impressive decline to 180 mL presurgery.34 However, the proportion of patients presenting in advances stages was higher when compared with that in the SIOP-2001 trial.
In addition to stage, histological features also drive the treatment strategy in WT. Hence, precise classification is crucial in differentiating WT from non-Wilms pathologies and identifying high-risk versus low-risk features in a WT. Studies have shown that blastemal predominant WT to be misclassified into a lower risk group in approximately 15% of cases.35 Histologic terminologies differ between the two treatment philosophies, that is, low-risk/intermediate risk/high risk is used in the context of SIOP/RTSG-guided treatment, whereas NWTS/COG-guided approach uses the definitions as favorable and unfavorable histology. In 58% of the studies, where definitions were noted to be congruent, the incidence of high risk/unfavorable WT was found to be similar to larger studies.3435
Timely radiation therapy forms an important component of adjuvant therapy in at least a third of the patients with WT. A surgery to radiotherapy interval of less than or equal to 14 days correlates with an improved survival.36 While few of the studies provide the proportion of patients needing adjuvant therapy, details about timing and doses have not been specified. Current systematic review also highlighted a high incidence (3–9%) of toxic deaths in a disease that is treated majorly with less than or equal to 3 chemotherapy drugs on an outpatient basis. Malnutrition, sepsis with multi-drug resistant organisms, inadequate supportive care, and excess postoperative complications are probable incriminating factors. There were difficulties in assessing the outcomes in this review mostly due to inconsistencies with definition of survival and data regarding lost to follow-up or treatment abandonment being not available from most of the studies. Despite these setbacks, the current review showed an acceptable survival of 74 to 87% among Indian patients.
According to World Health Organization, the estimated incidence of WT among children between 0 and 14 years in India is 4.4 age-standardized rates per million.4 Children of 0 to 14 years constitute 26% of the total 1.38 crore population of India.37 As of date, the expected incidence of WT in India is 1,600 cases per year. Though the incidence of renal tumors is not associated with economic status, mortality is relatively higher in LICs and LMICs. Several barriers exist in childhood cancer treatment and these extend to WT as well. Inappropriate use of chest radiographs instead of CT scans for screening metastases, inaccurate histopathological risk stratification, lack of adherence to nodal sampling alongside nephrectomy, and inability to deliver timely radiation are some barriers specific to WT. In addition, delayed presentation, delayed diagnosis, sociocultural factors such as illiteracy, gender bias, and poor access to care further hamper survival.63839 Employing national guidelines to tailor therapy and conducting collaborative trials would improve treatment delivery and build expert clinical capacity.40 While the developed countries continue to improve upon the benchmark of overall survival of 90%, with insights into tumor biology and molecular classification being the next step, our immediate steps must be directed at surmounting the aforementioned challenges.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited by predominance of retrospective and poorly designed studies. There were difficulties in assessing the outcomes mostly due to inconsistencies with definition of survival and data regarding lost to follow-up or treatment abandonment being not available from most of the studies.
Conclusion
The current systematic review highlights the disease trends and treatment strategies of WT in India. Substantial proportion of patients present with advance stages of the disease and survival seems to be inferior in comparison to developed countries. There is a need to assess for prognostic factors in Indian patients that will guide in intensifying therapy in selective patients. In addition, long-term follow-up with assessment of quality of life is necessary to establish overall success of therapy. Population-based registries are required to estimate disease burden that would help in health planning and allocation of resources.
Supplementary Material
References
- Advances in Wilms tumor treatment and biology: progress through international collaboration. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(27):2999-3007.
- [Google Scholar]
- Treatment of stage IV favorable histology Wilms tumor with lung metastases: a report from the Children's Oncology Group AREN0533 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(16):1564-1570.
- [Google Scholar]
- Predictors of treatment outcome of Wilms tumour in low-income country; single centre experience from Pakistan. J Pediatr Urol. 2020;16(03):375.e1-375.e7.
- [Google Scholar]
- Wilms tumor in Africa: a systematic review of management challenges and outcome in two decades (2000-2019) Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67(11):e28695.
- [Google Scholar]
- SIOP PODC: clinical guidelines for the management of children with Wilms tumour in a low income setting. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60(01):5-11.
- [Google Scholar]
- Challenges and outcome of Wilms' tumour management in a resource-constrained setting. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2010;7(03):159-162.
- [Google Scholar]
- Risk factors for abandonment of Wilms tumor therapy in Kenya. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62(02):252-256.
- [Google Scholar]
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute [Internet][cited 2021 Nov 10] Accessed October 28, 2022 at:
- Standardizing lymph nodal sampling for Wilms tumor: a feasibility study with outcomes. J Pediatr Surg. 2020;55(12):2668-2675.
- [Google Scholar]
- Long term outcome of Wilms' tumor in tertiary care hospital [Internet] Int Surg J. 2020;7:3234-3238.
- [Google Scholar]
- Outcome of children with Stage IV Wilms tumor - our experience of 15 years. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2020;25(06):372-377.
- [Google Scholar]
- Managing Wilms Tumor: A Single Centre Experience From North India. Pediatric Hematology Oncology Journal. 2019;4(02):S54.
- [Google Scholar]
- Wilm's tumor-collaborative approach is needed to prevent tumor upstaging and radiotherapy delays: a single institutional Study. [Internet] Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2019;40:409-412.
- [Google Scholar]
- Clinical outcomes of children with Wilms tumor treated on a SIOP WT 2001 protocol in a tertiary care hospital in south India. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(06):547.e1-547.e7.
- [Google Scholar]
- O-031 tumor volume and under-nutrition at diagnosis adversely affect the outcome of children with Wilms tumor: a study of 200 patients. [Internet] Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65:e27455.
- [Google Scholar]
- Wilms' tumor: histopathological variants and the outcomes of 31 cases at a tertiary care center in Northern India. Middle East J Cancer. 2017;8:143-150.
- [Google Scholar]
- Clinicoepidemiological profile and outcome of children with Wilms tumor in a developing country. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2016;38(07):e213-e216.
- [Google Scholar]
- Management and outcomes in massive bilateral Wilms' tumors. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2014;19(04):208-212.
- [Google Scholar]
- P 274. Is three drug chemotherapy protocol for all stages of Wilms Tumor a practical compromise for suboptimal staging in developing countries? Is it worth and safe? Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014;61:S105-S433.
- [Google Scholar]
- Wilms' tumor: single centre retrospective study from South India. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2013;4(03):301-304.
- [Google Scholar]
- Wilms tumor: a success story in the developing world! J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2013;35(08):632.
- [Google Scholar]
- Wilms tumor: five-year tumor-free survival on a modified SIOP protocol from an Indian university hospital. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2012;34(01):57-62.
- [Google Scholar]
- Multidisciplinary approach to treatment of Wilms tumor - AIIMS experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011;57(05):705-897.
- [Google Scholar]
- Clinical features and treatment strategies of Wilm's tumor: A setup in the last decade of the millennia and possible inclusion of advance researches to improve the clinical management. J Med Sci. 2007;7:797-803.
- [Google Scholar]
- (2014). Epidemiology of Renal Tumours of Childhood. In: Pritchard-Jones, K, Dome, J. (eds) Renal Tumors of Childhood. Pediatric Oncology Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
- [Google Scholar]
- Gender bias in health seeking behaviour of families of childhood cancer patients from north India: a 6 year retrospective observational study [Internet] Pediatric Hematology Oncology Journal. 2019;4(02):S13.
- [Google Scholar]
- Risk factors for local recurrence in Wilms tumour and the potential influence of biopsy - the United Kingdom experience. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(02):225-232.
- [Google Scholar]
- Immediate nephrectomy versus preoperative chemotherapy in the management of non-metastatic Wilms' tumour: results of a randomised trial (UKW3) by the UK Children's Cancer Study Group. [Internet] Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(15):2554-2562.
- [Google Scholar]
- Use of pretherapy core biopsy in the diagnosis of pediatric renal tumors. [Internet] J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2018;23(02):66-69.
- [Google Scholar]
- Customized approach for upfront or delayed resection using radiological criteria in unilateral, nonmetastatic pediatric renal tumors: a prospective study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019;66:e27815.
- [Google Scholar]
- Diagnostic accuracy and cytomorphological spectrum of Wilms tumour in fine needle aspiration biopsy cytology samples supplemented with cell blocks. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021;68(07):e28996.
- [Google Scholar]
- Evaluation of needle biopsy as a potential risk factor for local recurrence of Wilms tumour in the SIOP WT 2001 trial. Eur J Cancer. 2019;116:13-20.
- [Google Scholar]
- Outcome of localised blastemal-type Wilms tumour patients treated according to intensified treatment in the SIOP WT 2001 protocol, a report of the SIOP Renal Tumour Study Group (SIOP-RTSG) Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(04):498-506.
- [Google Scholar]
- Timing of radiation therapy in pediatric Wilms tumor: a report from the national cancer database. [Internet] Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(02):453-461.
- [Google Scholar]
- Population ages 0–14 (% of total population) - India | Data [Internet][cited 2021 Nov 10] Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO.ZS?locations=IN
- Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15):2625-2634.
- [Google Scholar]
- Baseline status of paediatric oncology care in ten low-income or mid-income countries receiving My Child Matters support: a descriptive study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(08):721-729.
- [Google Scholar]
- Management of Wilms tumor: ICMR consensus document. Indian J Pediatr. 2017;84(06):437-445.
- [Google Scholar]