Guidelines for Clinicians and Pathologists on Performing Skin Biopsies and Reporting on Suspected Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most common skin cancer after basal cell carcinoma. When squamous cell carcinomas in situ are included, nonmelanoma skin cancer incidence is nearly equal between CSCC and basal cell carcinoma. The incidence of CSCC has been increasing worldwide in recent decades, and despite the effectiveness of office-based therapies, patients with high-risk lesions associated with advanced CSCC face high rates of recurrence and mortality. This underscores the importance of accurate diagnoses and clear criteria to define high-risk lesions for prognosis and better treatment strategies. However, variability exists in CSCC registration practices internationally, and differences in pathology reporting likely contribute to an underestimate of the true burden of disease. Thus, there is a need to refine elements included in skin biopsy reports to provide a precise representation of the high-risk features of CSCC to improve patient care. In this review, a multidisciplinary group of Canadian experts discuss clinical considerations and provide key guidance and practical strategies surrounding skin biopsy techniques, completion of requisition forms, and dermatopathology reports for CSCC. This article summarizes the expert panel's recommendations with the goal of improving diagnosis and pathological reporting of biopsy specimens to achieve better patient outcomes for CSCC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".