Sentinel Node Mapping in Early Breast Cancer: A Randomized Comparison of Fluorescein Guided All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Anurag's Technique with Technetium-99 m Sulfur Colloid Plus Methylene Blue.

Purpose: Evaluation of fluorescein along with blue dye as an affordable tracer for sentinel node biopsy in comparison with technetium + methylene blue. A randomized trial was conducted with the following objectives: (1) to demonstrate that the identification of sentinel lymph node by fluorescein + methylene blue is not inferior to the identification by Tc-99 m sulfur colloid + methylene blue and (2) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sentinel node biopsy by above two tracers. Subjects and Methods: One-thirty patients above age 18 years presenting with early breast cancer T1, T2, N0 breast carcinoma were randomized to undergo sentinel node biopsy by either fluorescein + methylene blue or Tc-99 m sulfur colloid + methylene blue. Results: The sentinel lymph nodes were identified in 89% in Fluorescein + methylene blue group and 90.9% with Tc-99 m sulfur colloid + methylene blue group. The trial demonstrated noninferiority of fluorescein + methylene blue as compared to isotope + methylene blue with effect size = 1; 95% confidence interval- 9.54 to + 11.54. The fluorescein + methylene blue was more cost-effective than isotope guided sentinel node biopsy. Conclusion: Fluorescein-guided sentinel node biopsy is noninferior and more cost-effective than isotope-guided sentinel node biopsy.

Continuing surgical care in cancer patients during the nationwide lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic-Perioperative outcomes from a tertiary care cancer center in India.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted management of non-COVID-19 illnesses, including cancer. For many solid organ cancers, surgical intervention is imperative. We present our experience with major operations during a nationwide lockdown. METHOD: This was an observational study of 184 patients, analyzing their perioperative outcomes and categorizing morbidity according to Clavien-Dindo Classification. Strict screening required symptomatic patients to be referred to COVID centers and their operations postponed. Continuous and categorical variables were expressed as medians with range and frequencies and percentages, respectively. A two-sided α < .05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: During the lockdown, we initiated a graded response over four phases: (I) 24 March to 14 April (18 procedures); (II) 15 April to 3 May (26 procedures); (III) 4 to 17 May (41 procedures); and (IV) 18 to 31 May (99 procedures). The rates of major perioperative morbidity were 10.9% and mortality 1.6%. Over the four phases, the major morbidity rates were 11.1%, 15.4%, 9.8%, and 13.1%. On multivariate analysis, an emergency procedure was the only significant factor associated with morbidity. During the study period, no hospital staff became symptomatic for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In a region with milder impact of COVID-19, treatment of cancer patients need not be deferred. Our study showed that with appropriate precautions, asymptomatic patients may undergo operations without increased morbidity to them and hospital staff.