Chen, Michelle

Importance There is no consensus on staging and surveillance imaging for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). Although imaging has been shown to affect management, broad recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have led to variability in clinical practice. Objective To develop multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on the use of staging and surveillance imaging of localized CSCC. Evidence Review A multidisciplinary expert panel across academic and clinical practice settings convened a Delphi consensus, with 3 iterative survey rounds from January to June 2025. Data were analyzed from February 2025 to January 2026. Eligibility defined by at least 1 to 2 CSCC publications during the previous 5 years, involvement in a relevant clinical trial, experience treating at least 3 patients monthly with CSCC, and/or 5 years or longer of clinical practice. Fifty-four experts were invited and 45 (83%) completed all 3 rounds and were included in the final analysis. Structured Delphi surveys evaluated clinical scenarios, imaging modalities, and surveillance strategies for CSCC. Consensus and near-consensus recommendations were generated, defined as 80% or greater and 70% to 79% agreement, respectively. Findings The 45 participants (21 female individuals [47%] and 24 male individuals [53%]; 14 Asian individuals [31%], 1 multiracial individual [2%], and 30 White individuals [67%]) consisted of dermatology (15 [33%]), medical oncology (7 [16%]), radiation oncology (9 [20%]), radiology (9 [20%]), surgery (3 [7%]), and otolaryngology specialists (2 [4%]). The Delphi panel recommended staging and surveillance for CSCCs with at least a 15% risk of metastasis. Consensus or near consensus was reached to recommend staging and surveillance imaging for tumors with a concern for metastasis, bone invasion, invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, large-caliber nerve invasion, or a diameter of 4 cm or larger or the combination of tumors with poorly differentiated histology and any of the following: diameter of 2 cm or larger, lymphovascular invasion and subcutaneous fat invasion, or lymphovascular invasion and small-caliber perineural invasion. Computed tomography imaging was the preferred modality for nodal staging (38 [84%]) and surveillance (35 [78%]). For surveillance duration, consensus was reached to provide imaging for at least 2 years, and near consensus was reached for at least 3 years. Conclusions and Relevance This study provides an expert consensus–based framework to standardize imaging in localized CSCC that may inform future guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: To support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and providers surrounding biologic treatments, we created IBD&me (ibdandme.org)—a freely available, unbranded, interactive decision aid. We performed a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial comparing the impact of IBD&me on SDM vs a biologics fact sheet developed by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. METHODS: We enrolled patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being seen at a clinic within IBD Qorus—a multicenter adult IBD learning health system—between March 5, 2019, and May 14, 2021. Eligible patients included those with recent IBD-related symptoms who reported that they wanted to discuss biologics with their provider during their upcoming visit. Patients were randomized 1:1 using stratified block randomization and received an e-mail 1 week before their visit inviting them to review either IBD&me or a fact sheet. The primary outcome was patient perception of SDM as measured by the 9-Item SDM Questionnaire (0–100 scale; higher = better); the Student t test was used to compare outcomes between arms. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients were randomized (biologics fact sheet 75, IBD&me 77); most patients had Crohn's disease (66.4%) and were biologic-experienced (82.9%). No differences were seen between groups regarding SDM (fact sheet 72.6 ± 25.6, IBD&me 75.0 ± 20.8; P = .57). Most patients stated they would be likely to recommend the fact sheet (79.6%) or IBD&me (84.9%; P = .48) to another patient with IBD. DISCUSSION: No differences in outcomes were seen between IBD&me and the biologics fact sheet in this comparative effectiveness study; patients reported high satisfaction with both resources. Further study, particularly among biologic naïve patients, is needed to determine the utility of interactive components to IBD decision aids.