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.
Prospective, randomized dose-escalation trial with proton-based radiation for skull base and cervical spine chondrosarcomas: 30-year outcomes from PROG 85-26
Abstract Background To determine if dose escalation improves outcomes for chondrosarcomas (CHS) of the base of the skull (BOS) and the cervical spine (CS). Methods A prospective, randomized, dose-escalation trial was designed for patients with CHS of the BOS and CS. Patients were randomly assigned to 70 Gy (RBE) or 76 Gy (RBE). The primary endpoint was local failure (LF). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related toxicities. Results Between 1987 and 2007, 105 patients were randomized, median follow-up was 29.2 years (IQR, 26.7-32.4). Forty-six patients were assigned to 70 Gy (RBE) and 59 were assigned to 76 Gy (RBE). LF at 5-, 10-, and 20 years were 7%, 9%, and 11% for 70 Gy (RBE), and 10%, 15%, and 19% for 76 Gy (RBE) (P = .16). Like LF rates, there was no benefit in dose escalation for OS (P = .28) and CSS (P = .22). Progression-free survival at 5-, 10-, and 20 years was 93%, 89%, and 77% for the low-dose group and 83%, 71%, and 59% for the high-dose group (P = .069). Late RT injury ≥ grade 3 was reported in a total of 19 (18%) patients across both dose levels, with 11% in the low-dose group and 24% in the high-dose group (P = .13). Conclusions This is the first and largest trial of patients with grade I/II BOS and CS CHS evaluating dose escalation for tumor control. Proton-based RT is effective and safe for these tumors, but there is no apparent benefit in dose escalation. Clinical Trial Information NCT00592748.