The incidence and mortality of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Indonesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of childhood ALL in Indonesia is still largely unknown. The widely mentioned statistics from other countries turn out to be only estimated figures. Other data do not specify the types of leukemia and are not specifically focused on children. Therefore, this study aims to pool incidence and mortality statistics from available studies in Indonesia.
METHODS: We searched five different academic databases, including Pubmed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Three Indonesian databases, such as the Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD), Neliti, and Indonesia One Search, were also utilized. Incidence was expressed as per 100,000 children. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) to assess the quality of cohort studies. The inclusion criteria are cohort studies published in the languages of English or Indonesian. For this analysis, we define children as 0-18 years old.
FINDINGS: The incidence rate for childhood ALL was found to be 4.32 per 100,000 children (95% CI 2.65-5.99) with a prediction interval of 1.98 to 9.42 per 100,000 children. The incidence rate is higher in males, with 2.45 per 100,000 children (95% CI 1.98-2.91) and a prediction interval of 1.90 to 3.16 per 100,000 children. As for females, the incidence rate is 2.05 per 100,000 children (95% CI 1.52-2.77) with a prediction interval of 1.52 to 2.77 per 100,000 children. The mortality of childhood ALL ranges from 0.44 to 5.3 deaths per 100,000 children, while the CFR is 3.58% with varying true effect sizes of 2.84% to 4.52%.
INTERPRETATION: With 79.5 million children living in Indonesia in 2018, this means that there were roughly 3,434 new cases of childhood ALL. An organized effort between multiple sectors is needed to improve the registries of childhood ALL in Indonesia.

Introduction

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is a malignancy that is most common in children, especially those aged 1–4 years old [1]. Over the years, through improvements in molecular biology, substantial progress has been made in understanding ALL [1-3]. These advancements can be attributed to sound epidemiological data, such as the incidence and mortality rates of childhood ALL [4]. These epidemiological metrics of ALL frequency form the basis for disease surveillance, healthcare policy formulation and evaluation, and scientific study [5]. We can identify characteristics that explain disparities in incidence and mortality rates by comparing them across studies and nations, which leads to improved disease prevention and treatment information [6, 7].

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as heart diseases, diabetes mellitus, and cancers, are increasingly more widespread than communicable diseases globally, including in Indonesia [8]. From 2012 to 2030, Indonesia will have spent $4.47 trillion on NCDs, with breast cancer alone accounting for 15.7 percent of the total cost. As a result, the expense of all cancers will be significantly higher than the estimated 15.7 percent [9].

Considering this, it will be indispensable to know the incidence rates, prevalence proportions, and mortality rates of childhood ALL to plan healthcare strategies for the future. Yet, the exact incidence rate of childhood ALL in Indonesia is still unknown. A frequently mentioned incidence of childhood ALL is 2.5 to 4.0 new cases per 100,000 children in Indonesia [10, 11]. However, upon tracing the literature, the original source states that the incidence mentioned is only an estimation and that "there was no international or national publication on the incidence of childhood cancer and childhood leukemia in Indonesia" [12]. The next best estimate is achieved from publications that calculated ALL incidence in a single institution, which developed the first institution-based cancer registry in 2000 [13]. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country, with more than 13,000 islands [8]. Therefore, such data on incidence from a single institution might not be enough to represent the incidence of childhood ALL in all of Indonesia.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Health did not make childhood cancer a major priority for funding [12]. This is reflected in the lack of precise data on childhood cancer. According to Indonesia’s cancer registration system from 2005 to 2007, the incidence of childhood ALL (0–17 years old) is 2.8 per 100,000 children. However, it is not specified whether leukemia refers specifically to ALL [14]. The Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) in 2020 found that Indonesia has an age-standardized incidence rate of 5.9–7.3 per 100,000 persons, which puts leukemia as the ninth highest cancer with new cases. However, GLOBOCAN’s data does not specify the incidence rate in children either [15].

Gaining information about the epidemiology of childhood ALL in Indonesia is crucial for controlling and managing the disease. Currently, Indonesia is utilizing a national cancer registry called Sistem Registrasi Kanker di Indonesia (SriKanDi), but this has not been fully adopted and utilized by all hospitals. The government does not make reporting into this registry mandatory, which may explain why it has not been fully embraced. Some institutions even choose to develop their own cancer registry, making the national cancer registry unreliable at best [13, 14]. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the incidence of childhood ALL in Indonesia. A meta-analysis has been conducted as individual studies may not have a sufficient sample size [16]. Our secondary analysis calculates the mortality rate and case fatality rate (CFR) of childhood ALL in Indonesia.

Methods

Eligibility criteria

The authors adhered to the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) 2020 [17]. The protocol of this review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database with the registration number CRD42022304184.

The population studied were all children (0–18 years old) diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Molecular and cytogenetics studies were very limited in Indonesia [11]. Therefore, the diagnosis must be confirmed by a minimum of a bone marrow smear with immunophenotyping analysis. The primary outcome of this study is to analyze the incidence rate of childhood ALL in Indonesia with a sub-group analysis of sex, study location, year of the study, and quality of the study. Initially, a sub-group analysis of incidence in each city was planned. However, due to the low number of studies available for each city, we decided to combine them into studies from Javanese and non-Javanese islands. The classification of a sub-group of quality would be based on good versus moderate and poor-quality studies as described below. Lastly, a sub-group analysis of the year when the studies were conducted would be classified into studies before 2010 and those from 2010 onwards. The secondary outcome of this study is to analyze the mortality rate and case fatality rate (CFR) of childhood ALL in Indonesia. There are no intervention or comparator groups.

This review’s original inclusion criteria were cohort studies published in English or Indonesian that report incidence rates. However, we realized that we could only find one study that reported an incidence rate [18]. Therefore, we replaced that criterion with cohort studies that included only newly diagnosed ALL patients without time restrictions. We also included grey literature, such as conference abstracts, theses, and dissertations. Those studies must have had enough background information to calculate the incidence rate. The exclusion criteria of this study are reviews, animal studies, and studies that generated negative effect sizes on the lower CI. These negative values indicate that the sample size was too small and could not estimate a stable incidence rate [19]. Therefore, sensitivity analysis would be done if the number of childhood ALL is <50 cases [20]. To ensure literature saturation, citations from review studies were scoured. We also did citation and hand searching to ensure that all available studies were included.

Search strategy and study selection

The literature search started on 31st December 2021 and ended on the same day. We searched five different academic databases, including Pubmed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Three Indonesian databases were also utilized to increase literature saturation: the Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD), Neliti, and Indonesia One Search. The keywords used were "acute lymphoblastic/lymphoid/lymphocytic leukemia", "incidence", "frequency", "epidemiology", and "Indonesia". The Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms for each database can be seen in S1 Table. All records were imported into the Rayyan software, where duplicates were detected automatically and screened manually [21]. This software also allowed authors to collaborate in selecting the relevant studies. Two independent authors conducted the initial search (SS and DG), importing all the findings into Rayyan software. Another author (YS) cross-checked the initial searches. These three authors independently screened all available studies. Conflicts were resolved by discussion with the experts (DG and DH). In the case of studies with overlapping time points from the same institution, we chose the data that provided us with the most available or most recent.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Data extraction was carried out independently by one author (DG), then reviewed by a second author (DH) to ensure accuracy. We extracted relevant information, such as study identification (author and year of publication), study characteristics (location and number of years the study was conducted), and participant data (population size, number of male patients with ALL diagnosis, incidence rate, and mortality rate). The data on the child population were extracted from the National Bureau of Statistics [22], and we utilized the mid-point year of the study’s implementation. The denominator for the population size was tailored to that particular study period. Therefore, this method ensures that our meta-analysis is not greatly affected by the changing population number. The male and female population data will be used to calculate the incidence of ALL in males and females, respectively.

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was implemented to assess the quality of cohort studies. A score of 7–9 on the NOS implied the study was of good quality, 4–6 indicated a moderate or fair quality, and a score of 0–3 meant that the study was of poor quality [23]. Two of the reviewers (DH and DG) independently assessed the scale, and any discrepancies were addressed with other authors (SS, YS, and DH) until a consensus was attained. If any missing data or further data were needed, corresponding authors were sent an email of inquiry. However, none of the corresponding authors reached back.

Data synthesis

We computed the incidence by dividing the number of ALL patients by the entire population of that region and expressing it as the number of children per 100,000. If the 95% confidence interval (CI) was not provided, we calculated it using the formula explained by Rutter et al. [24]. We used the inverse variance method to obtain the incidence rate and standard error log, which allowed us to pool the data. In order to adjust the CI of the pooled estimate, a random-effects meta-analysis was employed with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method [25]. Heterogeneity would be assessed with prediction intervals [26], and visual interpretations of between-study heterogeneity were explored using a Galbraith plot [27]. Publication bias would be assessed using a funnel plot analysis [28], rank correlation with Begg and Mazumdar’s test [29], and Egger’s test would be used for a regression intercept [30]. A trim-and-fill analysis would be conducted if there was an asymmetry in the funnel plot [31]. The analysis was conducted using STATA software (Version 17.0, StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA), and results would be displayed using forest plots.

Results

We identified 384 manuscripts where 71 of these articles were duplicates. A total of 23 records were eliminated after the title and abstract assessment, with 290 articles sought for a full assessment. A total of 10 articles were included in the analysis. We also found 27 articles from citation and hand searching, which resulted in an additional three manuscripts. Three manuscripts were excluded after sensitivity analysis [32-34]. Thirteen studies were available for systematic review and meta-analysis (S1 Fig). The studies’ characteristics and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale scores are presented in S2 Table.

The study period for this meta-analysis is from 1997 to 2019. The incidence rate for childhood ALL was 4.32 per 100,000 children (95% CI 2.65–5.99) (Fig 1). The prediction interval, which represents an absolute measure of heterogeneity, exhibits an incidence rate spread over a wide area: from 1.98 to 9.42 per 100,000 children. The Galbraith plot indicates no heterogeneity (S2A Fig), while the funnel plot is asymmetric (S2B Fig). The trim-and-fill analysis suggests a significant difference after adjustments (S2C Fig). Begg and Mazumdar’s test for rank correlation gives a p-value of 0.2001, indicating no evidence of publication bias. Egger’s test for a regression intercept gives a p-value of <0.001, indicating possible evidence of publication bias.

Fig 1

Forest plot showing the incidence rate and prediction interval of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (per 100,000 children).

A subgroup analysis of incidence by sex, location, year of study, and quality of study was conducted. As for incidence by sex, 12 studies were available for meta-analysis. One study negatively affected the lower confidence interval for the incidence in females and was, therefore, excluded after sensitivity analysis [41]. The incidence rate for males is higher than in females, with an incidence rate of 2.45 per 100,000 children (95% CI 1.98–2.91) and a prediction interval of 1.90 to 3.16 per 100,000 children (Fig 2A). As for the females, the incidence rate is 2.05 per 100,000 children (95% CI 1.55–2.55) with a prediction interval of 1.52 to 2.77 per 100,000 children (Fig 2B). The Galbraith plot indicates no heterogeneity for both sexes (S3A and S3B Fig). The funnel plots for the male and female subgroups indicated asymmetries (S4A and 5A Figs). The trim-and-fill analysis suggests no significant difference between the observed and imputed effect sizes for both sexes (S4B and 5B Figs). Both Begg and Mazumdar’s test for rank correlation and Egger’s test for a regression intercept give a p-value of <0.001 for both subgroups, indicating possible evidence of publication bias.

Fig 2

Forest plot showing the incidence rate and prediction interval of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (per 100,000 children) for males (A) and females (B).

The other subgroup comparison is presented in S3 Table. The incidence of ALL is lower on the Java island than non-Java islands. However, it displays a much narrower prediction interval (an incidence rate of 3.56 on Java Island vs 8.51 on non-Java islands per 100,000 children). Studies conducted before 2010 display a higher incidence rate of 5.12 per 100,000 children (95% CI 1.96–8.29) than studies done after 2010, with an incidence rate of 4.08 per 100,000 children (95% CI 2.07–6.09). However, both studies suffer from a very wide prediction interval. When assessed by the quality, studies of good quality gave an incidence rate of 4.80 (95% CI 2.64–6.99), while moderate quality studies provided an incidence rate of 3.56 (95% CI 0.86–6.25). The prediction interval is narrower in the good quality studies (1.96–11.74) than in the moderate quality studies (0.97–13.14).

We could not perform a meta-analysis on the mortality rate because of the low number of mortalities in almost every study. This negatively affects the lower confidence interval, and almost all studies were excluded via sensitivity analysis. Therefore, the results are presented narratively. Eight studies provided details on the number of deaths in childhood ALL. The mortality rate was highest in a study from Palembang [44], with 5.3 deaths per 100,000 children. Meanwhile, the lowest mortality rate was given in a study in Jakarta [39], with 0.44 deaths per 100,000 children. Three studies showed a mortality rate between 1–2 deaths per 100,000 children per year. These studies originate from Bandung [35], Jakarta [38], and Surabaya [41], with a mortality rate of 1.75, 1.8, and 1.86 deaths per 100,000 children, respectively. The remaining three studies from the Special District of Yogyakarta [36], Makassar [40], and Denpasar [46] have a mortality rate of 2.76, 2.1, and 2.3 deaths per 100,000 children, respectively.

The overall CFR for childhood ALL is 3.58% (95% CI 3.04–4.12) (Fig 3). The prediction interval for CFR is quite narrow: from 2.84% to 4.52%. The Galbraith plot indicates no heterogeneity (S6 Fig). Begg and Mazumdar’s test for rank correlation gives a p-value of 0.0094, indicating possible evidence of publication bias. The Egger’s test for a regression intercept gives a p-value of <0.001, indicating possible evidence of publication bias.

Fig 3

Forest plot showing the case fatality rate and prediction interval of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Discussion

This study found that the incidence of childhood ALL in Indonesia is 4.32 per 100,000 children. This number is higher than findings from other countries. The incidence of childhood (0–14 years) ALL in Nordic countries is 4.0 per 100,000 children per year [47]. In Switzerland, the mean incidence of childhood (<15 years) ALL during four consecutive four-year periods is 3.8 per 100,000 children per year [48]. One study that analyzed Saudi databases found that the age-adjusted incidence of childhood ALL (14 years old or younger) was 2.35 per 100,000 population in 2014 [49]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a finding on the childhood ALL trend from 2001 to 2014. This finding shows that the incidence of childhood ALL is 34 per 1,000,000 people per year in persons <20 years old. However, the incidence can be as high as 75.2 per 1,000,000 people per year in the age group of 1–4 years old [50]. There are three possible explanations for why the incidence rate is higher in our findings. The first is that we include children up to 18 years old, which may contribute to the higher incidence. Secondly, the wide heterogeneity in the true observed effect is depicted by the wide prediction intervals: as the lowest value of the prediction interval is 1.98 per 100,000 children, the true value may be lower or higher than 4.32 per 100,00 children [26]. Indonesia had 79.5 million children [51] in 2018, which means there were roughly 3,434 new cases of childhood ALL. This finding is similar in the United States of America, with >3,000 new cases each year [52]. There is a higher incidence of ALL in males than in females (2.45 vs 2.05 per 100,000 children, respectively). This finding is in concordance with other studies [15, 47, 49, 50]. Lastly, rapid advancements have been made in the ALL diagnostic process, such as the use of genetic and molecular studies. Children who belong to the high-risk groups could be screened and identified earlier, which may contribute to a higher incidence over the years [1-3].

The mortality of childhood ALL ranges from 0.44 deaths per 100,000 children in one study [39] to 5.3 deaths per 100,000 children in another study [44]. The CFR in this study is 3.58%. While children in developed countries have almost 90% cure rates [1, 3], only 20% of children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) survive [53]. Refusal or inability to pay for therapy was the most common reason for treatment failure in Indonesia. Treatment-related mortality was the second most common reason for treatment failure [10, 54]. Twinning—an established form of cooperation [55]—between Indonesia and the Netherlands produced an Indonesian-specific protocol in 2016 named the Indonesian Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) protocol. The development of this protocol has resulted in an estimated survival rate of 60–70% [56]. However, mortality varies greatly by city. Most of the studies included in this review are based on the island of Java. With most of the tertiary center hospitals on that island, 40% of children residing outside Java may not have an equal opportunity for early diagnosis and management [12]. Another plausible explanation for the differing mortality and incidence in Indonesia may be an underreporting of cases.

There are several limitations to this study. The first is the inclusion of studies with small sample sizes. This introduces a systematic sampling error that causes a bias in this finding. We have tried to mitigate this issue with a sensitivity analysis of <50 [57] but, ultimately, some bias will still exist. One of the consequences of this bias is the higher incidence rate before 2010, which seems counterintuitive as, with the further advancement of diagnostic techniques, there should be a better detection rate and, hence, a higher incidence rate [1-3]. Secondly, the funnel plot for incidence shows asymmetry caused by reporting biases, poor methodological quality, true heterogeneity, artefactual, and chance [30]. In terms of reporting biases, we have tried to mitigate this issue by searching Pubmed for ahead-of-print articles and by including all articles, especially grey literature, in English and Indonesian.

Regarding selective outcome and analysis reporting, some studies do not include the full ALL population available due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria [41, 43, 44]. One glaring difference can be found in a study conducted by Samosir et al. [43] in which only 49 children were included out of 495 newly-diagnosed cases of childhood ALL. Therefore, a separate analysis has been done with the original number of ALL cases before the inclusion and exclusion criteria in these three studies. However, the results do not change significantly, and the asymmetry in the funnel plot still exists. Therefore, some publication bias might be at play, despite our best efforts. Egger’s test for a regression intercept indicates that the findings suffer from small-study effects, as suggested by our funnel plot that heavily concentrates on the bottom-left corner. Our trim-and-fill analysis gives a lower incidence of 3.0 cases per 100,000 children (95% CI 1.07–4.92). However, the trim-and-fill method’s corrected results are not designed to accurately approximate test performance. This method can only be understood as a type of sensitivity analysis for determining the impact of the analysis’s bias [58, 59]. The third limitation is that we used a midterm population in our study, which may create inaccuracies in our results. On the same note, some studies specifically excluded children below one year old [39] or included children up to 18 years old. The national statistics only provided population data for 0–4, 5–9, 10–14, and 15–19 years old. Therefore, the denominator for some studies might include children below one year old or young adults of 18–19 years old. However, denominators account for only slight differences in incidence rates and should not significantly distort the results [60].

The fourth limitation is heterogeneity. We did not assess heterogeneity using the conventional I2 proportion because it does not reveal the dispersion of true effect sizes [61]. Cochran’s Q test is only used with the DerSimonian-Laird procedure, and therefore we did not utilize this either [62]. Instead, the Galbraith plot was used to visually detect heterogeneity [63] with prediction intervals to tell us how the true effects vary. Although the Galbraith plots do not show any heterogeneity, the prediction intervals show that the true effect sizes vary widely.

The last limitation is related to the situation of childhood ALL in Indonesia. Some children with ALL may die before being given a proper diagnosis or registration in the established cancer registry. The different physical and socioeconomic situations in each region of Indonesia—especially in remote locations outside of Java—could be one of the explanations. Poor families may be unable to access primary health care due to a lack of transportation or financial resources. For instance, a child in a remote area of Jambi (a city in Indonesia) would have to travel up to eight hours via land transportation to the neighboring city of Palembang just to have access to a pediatric oncologist. If the hospitals there cannot deliver the necessary care, the child would then have to travel from Palembang (Sumatera Island) to Jakarta (Java Island) via land transportation, which could take 2–3 days, or by plane, which would take 45 minutes. The distance traveled is coupled with financial issues for lodging, transportation, and loss of income opportunities, as the parents could not work while accompanying their children [8].

Furthermore, even if the patient could reach a primary health care institution, the medical staff there may not be aware of the symptoms and signs of childhood cancer. There may be a lack of laboratory and other diagnostic facilities, or the parents may be unable to afford necessary tests and treatment [8, 12, 18]. Therefore, the incidence, mortality, and CFR presented in this review may be higher in reality due to underdiagnosis or incomplete registries. Considering all the limitations mentioned above, we can only find a small sample of studies with good quality and sufficient sample sizes, with most studies coming from the Dr. Sardjito Hospital [56].

Despite the limitations, this study is a step forward in encouraging the government, institutions, researchers, and stakeholders to work together nationally and internationally to create a better cancer registry and, hence, more accurate epidemiology of childhood ALL in Indonesia [18, 56, 64]. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis—to our knowledge—that synthesizes the incidence, mortality, and CFR of childhood ALL in Indonesia. We sincerely hope that, through recognizing the high incidence and mortality of childhood ALL in Indonesia, more funding will be granted for the development of improved epidemiology, diagnostics, and treatments for childhood ALL. The urgency of having a better cancer registry and policies that can provide a reliable source for estimating the incidence and mortality of childhood ALL in Indonesia could not be overstated.

Conclusion

This study found that the incidence rate for childhood ALL in Indonesia is 4.32 per 100,000 children, with varying true effect sizes of 1.98 to 9.42 per 100,000 children. The mortality of childhood ALL ranges from 0.44 to 5.3 deaths per 100,000 children, while the CFR is 3.58%, with varying true effect sizes of 2.84% to 4.52%. Our findings indicate that the estimation of incidence in childhood ALL needs to be reviewed and improved. A strong and sustained international collaboration has improved and advanced the diagnosis and treatment of ALL in Indonesia. Therefore, twinning needs to be conducted more efficiently and regularly in a larger number of healthcare centers.

Medical subject heading (MeSH) terms used in each database.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Characteristics of included studies [18, 35–46].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Incidence of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia according to location, year in which the studies were conducted, and quality of studies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

PRISMA flowchart for selection of included studies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Galbraith plot (A), funnel plot (B), and trim-and-fill analysis funnel plot using R0 (C) of the incidence of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The observed effect size for the trim-and-fill analysis is 4.32 (95% CI 2.66–5.99), while the observed and imputed effect size is 3.00 (95% CI 1.07–4.92).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Galbraith plot of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia incidence in males (A) and females (B).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot (A) and trim-and-fill analysis using R0 (B) of the incidence of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in males. The observed effect size for the trim-and-fill analysis is 2.93 (95% CI 2.76–3.08), while the observed and imputed effect size is 3.05 (95% CI 2.90–3.19).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot (A) and trim-and-fill analysis using R0 (B) of the incidence of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in females. The observed effect size for the trim-and-fill analysis is 2.62 (95% CI 2.44–2.80), while the observed and imputed effect size is 2.85 (95% CI 2.68–3.02).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Galbraith plot of the case fatality rate of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

1 May 2022

The manuscript needs revision please check reviewers comments and address  accordingly

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed A Yassin, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please revise the PRISMA checklist such that the corresponding page number and line numbers of the items on the checklist are presented.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4.PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title:

The incidence and mortality of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Indonesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Outlines:

The authors did a systemic review and meta-analysis from 5 academic databases. They calculated the incidence and mortality of pediatric ALL in Indonesia.

Comments:

This is a well-written article. It provides the updated data of epidemiology of pediatric ALL in Indonesia. I only have one comment for the author.

1. Is it possible to illustrate the trend of incidence and mortality over the study periods? Is the incidence increasing? Is the mortality decreasing?

Reviewer #2: This is an important article and represents an excellent review of data sets to understand the incidence of ALL in Indonesia. There are many obstacles/limitations to this project, which are discussed.

The paper does need an English writer review and rewrite as there are a number of grammatical changes needed.

It is not clear to me what is the time period of all the data reviews. The articles were published from 2007-2021, but not sure how long the time period is and also how this may relate to a changing population size. Has the population size been stable, allowing for an accurate estimate by using the current population size? Some comments to address this would be clarifying.

Can you comment on how global improvements in diagnosis and treatment have affected outcome and also how this led to any increased awareness such as reporting may be increasing over the years (suggesting an increasing incidence).

The connection between cancer funding in Indonesia and how this data will impact access to this funding is not clear.

Would suggest to give a little more info on the local geography as it is implied there are areas of better access, but the common reader may have no understanding of local geography to know how or why this is important.

In the methods, please state how the reviewers defined a quality study.

Can you suggest more why the incidence rate may be higher before 2010, as it seems more intuitive it would be higher later with improved detection?

Give some thoughts as to why the differential mortality rate in different regions. How accurate do you think both the reported incidence and mortality are?

In the discussion one are of limitation is heterogeneity, but it is not clear why this specifically refers to. Heterogeneity of the population by region, age, etc?

The cancer registry is mentioned in the discussion. Comment more about this, when did it start and do all hospitals throughout the regions report to this? Is this required by the government? Will this cancer registry become a reliable source for calculating incidence and mortality?

Finally, how does this work impact a potential improvement in earlier diagnosis, care, and outcomes, as well as documentation for reporting and keeping public records?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 May 2022

Manuscript number: PONE-D-22-09885

Article Title: The incidence and mortality of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Indonesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Author's Response:

We thank the reviewers for their time and expertise. Please see the specific response to the reviewers enclosed below.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer #1: Title:

The incidence and mortality of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Indonesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Outlines:

The authors did a systemic review and meta-analysis from 5 academic databases. They calculated the incidence and mortality of pediatric ALL in Indonesia.

Comments:

This is a well-written article. It provides the updated data of epidemiology of pediatric ALL in Indonesia. I only have one comment for the author.

1. Is it possible to illustrate the trend of incidence and mortality over the study periods? Is the incidence increasing? Is the mortality decreasing?

Authors' response: Thank you for your valuable input. We did consider charting the trend in incidence and mortality. However, the studies included in this meta-analysis are not suitable for this illustration. This is because while there are multiple studies representing the incidence and mortality in some years, it is not the case for most of the studies. Therefore, we could not extrapolate the incidence from a single period of study in a single institution as the reflection of incidence and mortality in Indonesia and illustrate their trend from that very limited information.

Reviewer #2: This is an important article and represents an excellent review of data sets to understand the incidence of ALL in Indonesia. There are many obstacles/limitations to this project, which are discussed.

The paper does need an English writer review and rewrite as there are a number of grammatical changes needed.

Authors' response: Thank you for your valuable input. We have sent our paper for a professional proofreading check after this comment. We hope it is satisfactory.

It is not clear to me what is the time period of all the data reviews. The articles were published from 2007-2021, but not sure how long the time period is and also how this may relate to a changing population size. Has the population size been stable, allowing for an accurate estimate by using the current population size? Some comments to address this would be clarifying.

Authors' response: Thank you for your valuable input. We have added the study period on line 172 "The study period for this meta-analysis is between 1997-2019". As for the population size, we have delineated that we used the mid-point year of the study's implementation (lines 132-133). However, we have added an extra sentence on lines 138-140, stating, "The denominator for the population size is tailored to that particular study period. Therefore, this method ensures that our meta-analysis is not significantly affected by the changing number of the population" to clarify the sentence further. This means that although the study period is 1997-2019, the population size will remain stable as it is adjusted to that period.

Can you comment on how global improvements in diagnosis and treatment have affected outcome and also how this led to any increased awareness such as reporting may be increasing over the years (suggesting an increasing incidence).

Authors' response: Thank you for your valuable input. We have added a discussion on this topic on lines 248-251 "Lastly, rapid advancements have been made in ALL diagnostics, such as genetic and molecular studies. Children who belong to the high-risk groups could be screened and identified earlier, contributing to a higher incidence over the years(1-3)."

The connection between cancer funding in Indonesia and how this data will impact access to this funding is not clear.

Authors' response: Thank you for your valuable input. We have added a discussion regarding this issue on lines 325-328 "We sincerely hope that after recognizing the high incidence and mortality of ALL in Indonesia as compared to the rest of the world, more funding in childhood cancer is granted in order to obtain a better epidemiological, diagnostic, and treatment for a better future advancement of childhood ALL."

Would suggest to give a little more info on the local geography as it is implied there are areas of better access, but the common reader may have no understanding of local geography to know how or why this is important.

Authors' response: Thank you for your valuable input. We have given an illustration about this issue on line 306-313 "For instance, a child in remote areas of Jambi (a city in Indonesia) has to travel up to a minimum of eight hours via land transportation to the neighbouring city of Palembang, just to get an access to a pediatric oncologists. If the hospitals could not deliver the necessary care, the child has to travel from Palembang (Sumatera island) to Jakarta (Java island) via land transportation which could take up to 2-3 days or plane which could take 45 minutes. The distance travelled is then coupled with financial issues for lodging stay, transportation costs, and opportunity cost lost as the parents could not work while accompanying their children(8)."

In the methods, please state how the reviewers defined a quality study.

Authors' response: Thank you for raising this question. We have defined the quality of a study on line 142-144 "The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was implemented to assess the quality of cohort studies. A score of 7-9 on NOS implied the study had a good quality, 4-6 indicated a moderate or fair quality, and a score of 0-3 meant that the study had a poor quality(23)".

Can you suggest more why the incidence rate may be higher before 2010, as it seems more intuitive it would be higher later with improved detection?

Authors' response: Thank you for raising this question. We have attributed this to small sample sizes which could be read furhter on line 270-272 "One of the examples is a higher incidence rate before 2010 which seems counterintuitive as with further advancement of diagnostic techniques, there should be a better detection rate and hence a higher incidence rate(1-3)."

Give some thoughts as to why the differential mortality rate in different regions. How accurate do you think both the reported incidence and mortality are?

Authors' response: Thank you for raising this question. We have actually discussed this on line 255-260 but we have added a sentence on line 265-266 to further clarify this issue "Underreporting of ALL cases may also be a very plausible explanation to differing mortality and incidence in Indonesia". As to the accuracy, we have conceded about this issue on the limitation section on line 267-270 "There are several limitations to this study. The first limitation is the inclusion of studies with small sample sizes. This introduces a systematic sampling error, which causes a bias in this finding. We have tried to mitigate this issue with a sensitivity analysis of <50(57), but ultimately some bias will still exist".

In the discussion one are of limitation is heterogeneity, but it is not clear why this specifically refers to. Heterogeneity of the population by region, age, etc?

Authors' response: Thank you for raising this question. In order to be able to determine where does the heterogeneity comes from, a meta-regression needs to be done which could not be done in our study.

The cancer registry is mentioned in the discussion. Comment more about this, when did it start and do all hospitals throughout the regions report to this? Is this required by the government? Will this cancer registry become a reliable source for calculating incidence and mortality?

Authors' response: Thank you for raising this question. We have added the start of the institution-based cancer registry on line 57 "which develops the first institution-based cancer registry in 2000". Whether all hospitals report to this or required by the government is answered on line 70-74 "Currently, Indonesia is utilizing a national cancer registry called "Sistem Registrasi Kanker di Indonesia (SriKanDi)" but this is not fully adopted and utilized by all hospitals. The government do not make cancer reporting into this registry mandatory, which may explain why it is not fully embraced. Some institutions even choose to develop their own cancer registry, making the national cancer registry unreliable at best(13,14)". As for cancer registry being a reliable source of calculating incidence and mortality is answered on line 329-330 "The urgency for a better cancer registry and policy for a reliable source of estimating incidence and mortality of childhood ALL in Indonesia could not be overstated".

Finally, how does this work impact a potential improvement in earlier diagnosis, care, and outcomes, as well as documentation for reporting and keeping public records?

Authors' response: Thank you for raising this question. We have adddressed this issue on line 321-330 "Despite the limitations, this study is a step forward in encouraging the government, institutions, researchers, and stakeholders to work together nationally and internationally to create a better cancer registry and hence a more accurate epidemiology of childhood ALL in Indonesia(18, 56, 64). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, that synthesizes the incidence, mortality, and CFR of childhood ALL in Indonesia. We sincerely hope that after recognizing the high incidence and mortality of ALL in Indonesia as compared to the rest of the world, more funding in childhood cancer is granted in order to obtain a better epidemiological, diagnostic, and treatment for a better future advancement of childhood ALL. The urgency for a better cancer registry and policy for a reliable source of estimating incidence and mortality of childhood ALL in Indonesia could not be overstated."

We hope that all the reviewers and editor find this response satisfactory. We are more than eager to further revise any comments that are deemed inadequate or necessary for further improvements. Thank you.

Submitted filename: Authors Response to Reviews.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 May 2022

The incidence and mortality of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Indonesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-22-09885R1

Dear Dr. Dina,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohamed A Yassin, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form

Reviewers' comments:

30 May 2022

PONE-D-22-09885R1

The incidence and mortality of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Indonesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Garniasih:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohamed A Yassin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE