Methylene blue is a fluorescent dye discovered in 1876 and has since been used in different scientific fields. Only recently has methylene blue been used for intraoperative fluorescent imaging. Here, the authors review the emerging role of methylene blue, not only as a dye used in clinical practice, but also as a fluorophore in a surgical setting. We discuss the promising potential of methylene blue together with the challenges and limitations among specific surgical techniques. A literature review of PubMed and Medline was conducted based on the historical, current and future usage of methylene blue within the field of medicine. We reviewed not only the current usage of methylene blue, but we also tried to grasp its’ function as a fluorophore in five main domains. These domains include the near-infrared imaging visualization of ureters, parathyroid gland identification, pancreatic tumors imaging, detection of breast cancer tumor margins, as well as breast cancer sentinel node biopsy. Methylene blue is used in countless clinical procedures with a relatively low risk for patients. Usage of its fluorescent properties is still at an early stage and more pre-clinical, as well as clinical research, must be performed to fully understand its potentials and limitations.

Introduction: Nutritional care is a cornerstone of cancer treatment, with the potential to significantly improve patient outcomes by addressing malnutrition and enhancing recovery. Despite growing awareness, the integration of evidence-based nutritional strategies into oncology remains inconsistent. Following a 2020 survey that highlighted critical gaps, the NutriOnc Research Group launched targeted initiatives to raise awareness and improve practices. This study reassesses progress in integrating nutritional care and identifies persistent challenges. Methods: A 29-question survey was conducted in 2024 among 73 early-career oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, and nutrition specialists across Italy. Respondents provided insights into clinical nutrition program availability, multidisciplinary team composition, screening practices, and educational needs. Results: Encouraging advancements were noted, with 80.8% of respondents reporting the presence of clinical nutrition programs, compared to fewer structured efforts in 2020. However, only 26.0% included nutrition specialists in multidisciplinary teams, and barriers such as financial constraints, limited product availability, and the absence of trained professionals persisted. While 82.2% performed nutritional screening, variability in tools and practices highlighted the need for standardization. Strikingly, 98.6% expressed a strong demand for advanced education on clinical nutrition, emphasizing the need for innovative and accessible training programs. Conclusions: This study reveals a landscape of progress tempered by persistent inequities. To close the gap, oncology must embrace standardized protocols, expand access to trained nutrition specialists, and invest in educational initiatives. The findings offer actionable insights for transforming cancer care through nutrition, underscoring its potential to improve survival, quality of life, and overall treatment success.

To date very few studies with small sample size have compared peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM) with the current surgical standard of care, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), in terms of efficacy and safety, and no recommendations have been proposed.To investigate the efficacy and safety of POEM compared with LHM, for the treatment of achalasia.The databases of Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane, and Ovid were systematically searched between January 1, 2005 and January 31, 2015, with the medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords "achalasia," "POEM," "per oral endoscopic myotomy," and "peroral endoscopic myotomy," "laparoscopic Heller myotomy" (LHM), "Heller myotomy."All types of study designs including adult patients with diagnosis of achalasia were selected. Studies that did not report the comparison between endoscopic and surgical treatment, experimental studies in animal models, single case reports, technical reports, reviews, abstracts, and editorials were excluded.The total number of included patients was 486 (196 in POEM group and 290 in LHM group).There were no differences between POEM and LHM in reduction in Eckardt score (MD = -0.659, 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.38, P = 0.217), operative time (MD = -0.354, 95% CI: -1.12 to 0.41, P = 0.36), postoperative pain scores (MD = -1.86, 95% CI: -5.17 to 1.44, P = 0.268), analgesic requirements (MD = -0.74, 95% CI: -2.65 to 1.16, P = 0.445), and complications (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.5-2.44, P = 0.796). Length of hospital stay was significantly lower for POEM (MD = -0.629, 95% CI: -1.256 to -0.002, P = 0.049). There was a trend toward significant reduction in symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux rate in favors of LHM compared to POEM group (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.11-2.95, P = 0.017).All included studied were not randomized. Furthermore all selected studies did not report the results of follow-up longer than 1 year and most of them included patients who were both treatment naive and underwent previous endoscopic or surgical interventions for achalasia.POEM represents a safe and efficacy procedure comparable to the safety profile of LHM for achalasia at a short-term follow-up. Long-term clinical trials are urgently needed.