ABSTRACT Introduction: Brazil has many inequities in the healthcare provided nationwide. Therefore, in order to access challenges in treatment, available resources and current practices, to identify barriers in delivering a good quality of care among Brazilian centers treating children and adolescents with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) and to generate a future prospective guideline, a customized online survey was distributed to pediatric hematologists and oncologists across the country. Results: A total of 97 surveys were completed (35% response rate), from 47 cities in all Brazilian regions and 79 units of care, with a median of 1 answer by the center (range 1 - 5). Most respondents work at an institution supported exclusively by public/philanthropic resources (58%), with an average of 5 to 9 new cases/year (49%), and 41% have 4 to 6 oncologists/centers. Additionally, 22% have no easy access to the intensive care unit, 26% have no access to Rasburicase, 28% have no access to Rituximabe as front-line therapy and 41% have unreliable methotrexate monitoring levels. Those differences cannot be explained thoroughly by regional wealth variances, nor by the financing model. Regarding the pathology service, 70% consider having reasonable quality assistance, but the timeframe to deliver diagnosis is satisfactory to 46%. There is no uniform management of care, with the current guideline from the Sociedade Brasileira de Oncologia Pediátrica being adopted by 54 to 59%, depending on the NHL subtype. Conclusion: This study provides insights into the heterogeneity of care among Brazilian centers. Recognizing those diversities will support the design of effective strategies and collaboration nationwide. Introduction nationwide Therefore treatment practices NonHodgkin Non Hodgkin (NHL country Results 35% 35 (35 rate, rate , rate) 7 range 5. . 5) publicphilanthropic public philanthropic 58%, 58 58% (58%) casesyear cases year 49%, 49 49% (49%) 41 oncologistscenters oncologists/centers Additionally 22 unit 26 Rasburicase 28 frontline front line levels variances model service 70 assistance 46 46% 59 59% subtype Conclusion 3 (3 (58% (49% 2 ( (58 (49 (5 (4