Neonatal and Pediatric Medicine
Open Access

It’s a group of conditions involving abnormal cell growth with the eventuality to foray or spread to other corridor of the body. These discrepancies with benign excrescences, which don’t spread. Possible signs and symptoms include a lump, abnormal bleeding, prolonged cough, unexplained weight loss, and a change in bowel movements. While these symptoms may indicate cancer, they can also have other causes. Over 100 types of cancers affect humans. Cancer is a leading cause of death for children and adolescents. The likelihood of surviving a diagnosis of childhood cancer depends on the country in which the child lives: in high-income countries, more than 80% of children with cancer are cured, but in many LMICs less than 30% are cured.

The reasons for lower survival rates in LMICs include: delay in diagnosis, an inability to obtain an accurate diagnosis, inaccessible therapy, abandonment of treatment, death from toxicity (side effects), and avoidable relapse. Improving access to childhood cancer care, including to essential medicines and technologies, is highly cost effective, feasible and can improve survival in all settings. Cancer occurs in people of all ages and can affect any part of the body. It begins with genetic change in single cells, that then grow into a mass (or tumour), that invades other parts of the body and causes harm and death if left untreated. Unlike cancer in adults, the vast majority of childhood cancers do not have a known cause. Many studies have sought to identify the causes of childhood cancer, but very few cancers in children are caused by environmental or lifestyle factors. Cancer prevention efforts in children should focus on behaviours that will prevent the child from developing preventable cancer as an adult [1].

Some chronic infections, such as HIV, Epstein-Barr virus and malaria, are risk factors for childhood cancer. They are particularly relevant in LMICs. Other infections can increase a child’s risk of developing cancer as an adult, so it is important to be vaccinated (against hepatitis B to help prevent liver cancer and against human 

papillomavirus to help prevent cervical cancer) and to other pursue other methods such as early detection and treatment of chronic infections that can lead to cancer. Current data suggest that approximately 10% of all children with cancer have a predisposition because of genetic factors. Further research is needed to identify factors impacting cancer development in children [2].

Tobacco use is the cause of about 22 of cancer deaths. Another 10 are due to rotundity, poor diet, lack of physical exertion or inordinate drinking of alcohol. Other factors include certain infections, exposure to ionizing radiation, and environmental adulterants. In the developing world, 15 of cancers are due to infections similar as Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, mortal papillomavirus infection, Epstein–Barr contagion and Mortal Immunodeficiency Contagion (HIV). These factors act, at least incompletely, by changing the genes of a cell. Generally, numerous inheritable changes are needed before cancer develops. Roughly 5-10 of cancers are due to inherited inheritable blights. Cancer can be detected by certain signs and symptoms or webbing tests. It’s also generally farther delved by medical imaging and verified by vivisection [3].

Nonage cancer

This is cancer in a child. In the United States, an arbitrarily espoused standard of the periods used are 0-14 times inclusive, that is, up to 14 times 11.9 months of age. Still, the description of nonage cancer occasionally includes adolescents between 15 and 19 times old. Pediatric oncology is the branch of drug concerned with the opinion and treatment of cancer in children [4].

Worldwide, it’s estimated that nonage cancer has an prevalence of further than per time, and a mortality rate of roughly per time. In advanced countries, nonage cancer has a mortality of roughly 20 of cases. In low resource settings, on the other hand, mortality is roughly 80, or indeed 90 in the world’s poorest countries. In numerous advanced countries the prevalence is sluggishly adding, as rates of nonage cancer increased by 0.6 per time between 1975 and 2002 in the United States and by 1.1 per time between 1978 and 1997 in Europe. Unlike cancers in grown-ups, which generally arise from times of DNA damage, nonage cancers are caused by a misappropriation of normal experimental processes [5].

Signs and symptoms

Children with cancer are at threat for developing colorful cognitive or literacy problems. These difficulties may be related to brain injury stemming from the cancer itself, similar as a brain excrescence or central nervous system metastasis or from side goods of cancer treatments similar as chemotherapy and radiation remedy. Studies have shown that chemo and radiation curatives may damage brain white matter and disrupt brain exertion [6, 7].

This cognitive problem is known as Post-Chemotherapy Cognitive Impairment (PCCI) or “chemo brain. “This term is generally use by cancer survivors who describe having thinking and memory problems after cancer treatment. Experimenters are doubtful what exactly causes chemo brain, still, they say it’s likely to be linked to either the cancer itself, the cancer treatment, or be an emotional response to both [8].

This cognitive impairment is generally noticed a many times after a child endures cancer treatment. When a nonage cancer survivor goes back to academy, they might witness lower test scores, problems with memory, attention, and geste, as well as poor hand- eye collaboration and broke development over time. Children with cancer should be covered and assessed for these neuropsychological poverties during and after treatment. Cases with brain excrescences can have cognitive impairments before treatment and radiation remedy is associated with increased threat of cognitive impairment. Parents can apply their children for special educational services at academy if their cognitive literacy disability affects their educational success [9, 10].

I would like to thank my Professor for his support and encouragement.

The authors declare that they are no conflict of interest.

1. Oquendo M, Agrawal V, Reyna R, Patel HI, Emran MA, et al. (2015) Silver-impregnated hydrofiber dressing followed by delayed surgical closure for management of infants born with giant omphaloceles. J Pediatr Surg 50: 1668-1672.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Aldridge B, Ladd AP, Kepple J, Wingle T, Ring C, et al. (2016) Negative pressure wound therapy for initial management of giant omphalocele. Am J Surg 211: 605-609.

Indexed at, Google Scholar , Crossref

3. Bauman B, Stephens D, Gershone H, Bongiorno C, Osterholm E, et al (2016) Management of giant omphaloceles. A systematic review of methods of staged surgical vs. nonoperative delayed closure. J Pediatr Surg 51:1725-30.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. McNair aC, Hawes J, Urquaht H (2006) Caring for the newborn with an omphalocele. Neonat Netw 25: 319-27.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Wagner JP, Cusick RA (2019) Paint and wait management of giant omphaloceles. Semin Pediatr Surg 28: 95-100.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Mustafa Erman Dörterler (2019) Management of Giant Omphalocele Leading to Early Fascial Closure. Cureus 11: e5932.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Percy DB, Haddock C, Ma V, Nowak A, Panczuk J, Butterworth S (2018) Dressed for success? Silver impregnated nanocrystalline dressing for initial treatment of giant omphalocele. J Pediatr Surg 53:905-908.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Malhotra A (2010) Nanocrystalline silver dressing in the initial management of a giant omphalocele. J Paediatr Child Health 46: 365-366.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Tauzin L, Sigur N, Joubert C, Parra J, Hassid S, et al. (2013) Echocardiography allows more accurate placement of peripherally inserted central catheters in low birthweight infants. Acta Pediatr;102: 703-706.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Katheria AC, Fleming SE, Kim JH (2013) A randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters compared with standard radiograph in neonates. J Perinatol 33:791-4.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref