ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia management in India: balancing evidence, access, and affordability in clinical practice.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management of Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone a paradigm shift, moving from chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) to precision, biology-driven treatment with targeted agents. While these advances have rapidly reshaped practice in high-resource nations, their integration into routine care in India is limited by differences in epidemiology, healthcare infrastructure, drug access, and economic constraints. CLL remains relatively uncommon in India, with patients presenting at a younger age and historically at more advanced stages of disease. Nevertheless, there is a temporal shift towards earlier diagnosis with the wider use of hematological testing. Risk stratification has also evolved from clinical staging to molecular profiling incorporating TP53 mutation testing, IGHV mutation status, and cytogenetic abnormalities. However, access to molecular profiling remains limited across India, directly influencing therapeutic decision-making. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and BCL-2 inhibitors have demonstrated superior efficacy and tolerability compared to CIT across biological subgroups and are endorsed by international guidelines. In India, treatment selection continues to balance biological risk with access and affordability. The introduction of generic ibrutinib has been important, especially for TP53 mutated CLL, while uptake of venetoclax-based fixed-duration regimens has been limited by cost and monitoring requirements. CIT retains a limited role in selected young, IGHV-mutated patients with durable responses. This review examines contemporary CLL management through an Indian lens, emphasizing how global advances intersect with real-world constraints and influence local practice. Improving access to molecular diagnostics and targeted agents along with health-policy reforms is essential to narrow the outcome gap between Indian and Western patients with CLL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.