Search

Background: We previously reported rates of pathological complete responses (51% [95% CI 39-62] per independent central review, the primary endpoint) and major pathological responses (13% per independent central review, a secondary endpoint) to neoadjuvant cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1 inhibitor) among 79 patients with locoregionally advanced, resectable cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Here, we present follow-up data, including event-free, disease-free, and overall survival., Methods: This single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study included patients aged 18 years or older with resectable stage II-IV (M0) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received up to four planned doses of neoadjuvant cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks followed by curative-intent surgery. After surgery, per investigator discretion, patients received either adjuvant cemiplimab for up to 48 weeks, radiotherapy, or observation alone. Secondary endpoints included in this follow-up analysis are event-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival, all summarised using the Kaplan-Meier method. Activity and safety endpoints were analysed for all enrolled patients who received at least one dose of neoadjuvant cemiplimab. In this report, safety data are reported for all patients who received at least one dose of adjuvant cemiplimab. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04154943, has completed enrolment and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between March 20, 2020, and July 8, 2021, 79 patients were enrolled. Median age was 73 years (IQR 66-81), 67 (85%) patients were male, 12 (15%) were female, 69 (87%) were White, one was Asian (1%), one was other race (1%), and race was not reported for eight (10%). As of data cutoff (Dec 1, 2022), median follow-up was 18·7 months (IQR 15·6-22·1) for all 79 patients. Among 70 patients who had surgery, 65 (93%) had post-surgical management data: 32 (49%) of 65 were observed postoperatively, 16 (25%) received adjuvant cemiplimab, and 17 (26%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. 11 (14%) of 79 patients had event-free survival events, with an estimated 12-month event-free survival of 89% (95% CI 79-94) for all patients. None of 40 patients who had a pathological complete response and one (10%) of ten patients with major pathological response had recurrence. Six (9%) of 70 patients who completed surgery had a disease-free survival event, with an estimated 12-month disease-free survival of 92% (95% CI 82-97). Nine (11%) of 79 patients died, with an estimated 12-month overall survival for all patients of 92% (95% CI 83-96). Four (25%) of 16 patients who received adjuvant cemiplimab treatment had grade 3 adverse events, including one (6%) who had increased blood potassium, one (6%) who had traumatic limb amputation, and two who had serious adverse events (one [6%] cardiomyopathy and one [6%] hypophysitis). There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: For patients with resectable stage II-IV cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, neoadjuvant cemiplimab followed by surgery might be a potential treatment option, addressing a substantial unmet need., Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NDG reports institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; speaker honoraria from AiCME; and advisory board and consulting fees from PDS Biotechnology, Replimmune, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Merck. DMM reports honoraria for advisory or consultant roles from Castle Biosciences, EMD Serono, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharpe & Dome, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bristol Myers Squibb; equity options from Checkpoint Therapeutics and Avstera Therapeutics Corp; and research funding from Kartos Therapeutics, NeoImmune Tech, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NIK reports grants and advisory board fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Replimmune, and Novartis; advisory board fees from Iovance, Instil Bio, Castle Biosciences, Nektar, Incyte (data safety monitoring committee), AstraZeneca (data safety monitoring committee), and Jounce Therapeutics; grants from GlaxoSmithKline, HUYA, and Celgene; honoraria from Genzyme, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (paid by Pfizer), Nektar (study steering committee), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (study steering committee), Bristol Myers Squibb (study steering committee). and Replimmune (study steering committee); grant from Modulation Therapeutics; travel support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and common stock ownership of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Amarin, and Asensus Surgical (formerly Transenetrix). VD reports institutional research funding from Genentech, and advisory board fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. ESR reports advisory board and consulting fees from Genentech, Feldan Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi, and serves on the board of directors for Checkpoint Therapeutics. EJL reports institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; institutional grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; advisory board fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genentech, Instil Bio, Merck, Natera, Nektar Therapeutics, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Replimmune, and Sanofi; payment for speaker's fee from Bristol Myers Squibb; and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Macrogenics, OncoSec, Merck, Novartis, CareDX, and Pfizer. FM reports travel support, speaker's fees or advisor's honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi; and research funding from Novartis and Roche. PLS reports institutional research grants from Ascentage Pharma and Pfizer, and advisory board roles for Elevar Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. JA reports payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus and presentations from Bristol Myers Squibb and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; advisory board and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. JLG reports institutional research funding from Alkermes, EMD Serono, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Roche/Genentech; and advisory board or consultant fees from Astellas, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Merck, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. AH reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck-Pfizer, MSD/Merck, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis Pharma, Eisai, Replimmune, NeraCare; consulting fees from Seagen, IO Biotech, Dermagnostix, Incyte, Highlight Therapeutics, and Iovance; speaker's honoraria from Kyowa Kirin; advisory board fees from Immunocore; and institutional grants from Huya Biosciences outside the submitted work. JHC reports consulting or advisory roles for Exelixis, Coherus Biosciences, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and institutional research funding from Arcus Biosciences and Genmab. BGMH reports consulting or advisory roles at AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche, and institutional research funding from Amgen. DS reports honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Array BioPharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, 4SC, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, NeraCare GmbH, Sun Pharma, InflarxGmbH, Ultimovacs, and Sandoz; consulting fees from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Nektar; speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Merck; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Nektar; institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, and Array BioPharma/Pfizer; unpaid leadership or fiduciary roles with Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Melanoma Group, Hiege-Stiftung, and Nationale Versorgungskonferenz Hautkrebs; and travel and accommodation expenses from Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. VAP reports honoraria for advisory or consulting roles from Sun Pharma, Almirall, Biofrontera, PhD Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme; speakers bureau fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme, equity in Avstera Therapeutics and Science 37; and research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. JMT reports honoraria for advisory or consultant roles for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck & Co, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Compugen, Lunaphore, and Akoya Biosciences; stock options in Akoya Biosciences; equipment loan and reagent provision from Akoya Biosciences; and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Akoya Biosciences. AML reports uncompensated consultancy for Eisai, research funding support from Sanofi/Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and support from a Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Discovery Partner Fellowship. RF reports grants or investigator-initiated trial support from Merck, Pfizer, Gilead, and Ayala; royalties from UpToDate for a chapter on olfactory neuroblastoma; payment for expert testimony from Guidepoint; and advisory board participation with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Prelude Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, Eisai, Remix Therapeutics, and Coherus BioSciences. S-YY, HH, FS, and IL are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. MM and MGF report receipt of support for attending meetings or travel, and are also employees, patent holders, and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. DR reports institutional research grant and funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Sanofi, Kura Oncology, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Decibel Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and ALX Oncology; and uncompensated scientific committee and advisory board roles for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Eisai. YBS and JH declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a pilot study involving patients with cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, a high percentage of patients had a pathological complete response with the use of two doses of neoadjuvant cemiplimab before surgery. Data from a phase 2 study are needed to confirm these findings., Methods: We conducted a phase 2, confirmatory, multicenter, nonrandomized study to evaluate cemiplimab as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable stage II, III, or IV (M0) cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. Patients received cemiplimab, administered at a dose of 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to four doses, before undergoing surgery with curative intent. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen) on independent review at a central laboratory, with a null hypothesis that a pathological complete response would be observed in 25% of patients. Key secondary end points included a pathological major response (the presence of viable tumor cells that constitute ≤10% of the surgical specimen) on independent review, a pathological complete response and a pathological major response on investigator assessment at a local laboratory, an objective response on imaging, and adverse events., Results: A total of 79 patients were enrolled and received neoadjuvant cemiplimab. On independent review, a pathological complete response was observed in 40 patients (51%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39 to 62) and a pathological major response in 10 patients (13%; 95% CI, 6 to 22). These results were consistent with the pathological responses determined on investigator assessment. An objective response on imaging was observed in 54 patients (68%; 95% CI, 57 to 78). Adverse events of any grade that occurred during the study period, regardless of whether they were attributed to the study treatment, were observed in 69 patients (87%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events that occurred during the study period were observed in 14 patients (18%)., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy with cemiplimab was associated with a pathological complete response in a high percentage of patients with resectable cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04154943.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Standard of care for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is surgical excision of the primary lesion with clear margins when possible, and additional resection of positive margins when feasible. Even with negative margins, certain high-risk factors warrant consideration of adjuvant therapy. However, which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy is unclear, and supporting evidence is conflicting and limited to mostly small retrospective cohorts. Here, we review literature from the last decade regarding adjuvant radiation therapy and systemic therapy in high-risk cSCC, including recent and current trials and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We demonstrate evidence gaps in adjuvant therapy for high-risk cSCC and the need for prognostic tools, such as gene expression profiling, to guide patient selection. More large-cohort clinical studies are needed for collecting high-quality, evidence-based data for determining which patients with high-risk cSCC may benefit from adjuvant therapy and which therapy is most appropriate for patient management., (© 2021 Castle Biosciences, Inc. Head & Neck published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background/aim: Satellitosis/in-transit metastasis (S-ITM) has prognostic value in melanoma and Merkel cell carcinoma, but is not incorporated into cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) staging., Patients and Methods: From our IRB-approved registry, patients with high-risk cSCC, including patients with S-ITM, were identified. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) analyses were performed to compare disease progression (DP) and overall survival (OS). Cumulative incidence of DP and OS analyses were performed using Fine-Gray and Kaplan-Meier methods, respectively., Results: A total of 18 S-ITM subjects were compared to 247 high risk subjects including T3N0 (n=143), N1-N3 without extranodal extension (ENE) (n=56), N1-N3 with ENE (n=26) and M1 disease (n=22). Median follow up was 16.5 months. Three-year rates of DP were 22% for T3N0, 42% for S-ITM, 48% for T4 bone invasion, 50% for N1-N3 without extranodal extension (ENE), 53% for N1-N3 with ENE, and 66% for M1. Patients with S-ITM did not experience significantly worse DP compared to those with T3N0 (HR=1.96, 95%CI=0.8-4.9; p=0.14)., Conclusion: Cutaneous SCC patients with S-ITM experienced outcomes similar to locally advanced non-metastatic cSCC patients. Larger studies are needed to guide incorporation into staging systems., (Copyright© 2021, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Cemiplimab, a high-affinity, potent human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody to programmed cell death-1 demonstrated antitumor activity in a Phase 1 advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) expansion cohort (NCT02383212) and the pivotal Phase 2 study (NCT02760498). Here we report the primary analysis of fixed dose cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) (Group 3) and provide a longer-term update after the primary analysis of weight-based cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W) (Group 1) among metastatic CSCC (mCSCC) patients in the pivotal study (NCT02760498)., Methods: The primary objective for each group was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included ORR by investigator review (INV), duration of response (DOR) per ICR and INV, and safety and tolerability., Results: For Group 3 (n=56) and Group 1 (n=59), median follow-up was 8.1 (range, 0.6 to 14.1) and 16.5 (range, 1.1 to 26.6) months, respectively. ORR per ICR was 41.1% (95% CI, 28.1% to 55.0%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 45.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 54.8%) in both groups combined. Per ICR, Kaplan-Meier estimate for DOR at 8 months was 95.0% (95% CI, 69.5% to 99. 3%) in responding patients in Group 3, and at 12 months was 88.9% (95% CI, 69.3% to 96.3%) in responding patients in Group 1. Per INV, ORR was 51.8% (95% CI, 38.0% to 65.3%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 50.4% (95% CI, 41.0% to 59.9%) in both groups combined. Overall, the most common adverse events regardless of attribution were fatigue (27.0%) and diarrhea (23.5%)., Conclusion: In patients with mCSCC, cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously Q3W produced substantial antitumor activity with durable response and an acceptable safety profile. Follow-up data of cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously Q2W demonstrate ongoing durability of responses., Trial Registration Number: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02760498. Registered May 3, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02760498., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DR: institutional research grant and funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline; uncompensated scientific committee and advisory board from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; travel and accommodation from Merck Sharp & Dohme and GlaxoSmithKline. MRM: honoraria and travel expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, and Sun Pharma; and institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis, Genentech, and Eli Lilly. AML: uncompensated advisory board from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Bristol-Myers Squibb with travel and accommodation expenses. CDS: steering committee member for Castle Biosciences; a steering committee member and consultant for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; a consultant for Sanofi; has received research funding from Castle Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis, Genentech, and Merck, and is a chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NIK: grants from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; grants and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and HUYA Bioscience International; advisory board fees from EMD Serono, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Genentech, AstraZeneca (data safety monitoring committee), Merck, Array BioPharma, and Immunocore; grants from Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, and Amgen; honorarium from Sanofi; and common stock ownership of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Mazor Robotics, Amarin, and TransEnterix. BGMH: consulting or advisory roles at Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, Merck, and institutional research funding from Amgen. DS: institutional patients’ fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; advisory board honorarium fees from Amgen and Leo Pharma; speaker fee from Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory board, speaker honorarium and patients’ fees from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck-EMD; advisory board and speaker honorarium fees from Incyte and Pierre Fabre; advisory board honorarium and patients’ fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, steering committee honorarium fees from 4SC, advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Array; and advisory board and patients’ fees from Philiogen. LAD: advisory role at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and research funding from Eisai, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. LH-A: performed consulting and advisory roles at Massive Bio; speakers’ bureau roles at Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Immunocore, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Polynoma, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, MedImmune, and Takeda. ALSC: consulting and advisory roles at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck; research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis, Galderma, and Merck. BM: speaker’s honoraria, travel, accommodations and expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sanofi. AH: institutional grants, speaker’s honoraria, and consultancy fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme/Merck, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Roche, and Novartis; institutional grants and consultancy fees from Merck Serono, Philogen, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and consultancy fees from OncoSec. CU: honoraria, consulting, or advisory roles, speaker’s bureau role, research funding and travel, accommodation, and expenses from Novartis, Sanofi, Galderma, and Almirall. TE: consulting or advisory roles at Sanofi Genzyme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dohme; speakers’ bureau role at Roche and Merck Sharp & Dohme and research funding from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. BS: consulting or advisory roles at Merck Sharp & Dohme and Merck KGaA Australia. ACP: honoraria and consulting or advisory roles at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Array, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Amgen; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celldex, and Forance and travel, accommodation, expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Array, and Seattle Genetics. JLG: research institution support for the study from and advisory board for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. RG: honoraria from Almirall Hermal GmbH, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; consulting or advisory role for 4SC, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sun Pharma, and Takeda; research funding from Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer; travel, accommodations, expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sorono, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. MA: consulting or advisory roles for Pulse Biosciences and Revance Therapeutics. EO, MM, VJ, ES, JB, SL, IL, MGF: employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. AG: personal fees and non-financial support (advisory board and travel support) from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma; personal fees (advisory board) from Merck KGaA, Eisai, and Pfizer; non-financial (travel) support from Astellas; and clinical trial unit support from PPD Australia., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Opinion Statement: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) of the head and neck is typically managed with Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS) for cosmetic reasons. MMS also improves oncologic outcomes for high-risk tumors. Patients with certain high-risk subsets of the disease also benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy. The PD-1 inhibitor, cemiplimab, was recently approved for treatment of locally advanced and metastatic cSCC unamenable to curative surgery or radiation therapy after the drug demonstrated encouraging, durable response rates. Cemiplimab and other systemic immunotherapies are now being evaluated in clinical trials in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings as well. Localized immunotherapies are also being studied, including oncolytic viruses such as talimogene laherparepvec, a modified herpes simplex virus previously approved for the treatment of advanced cutaneous melanoma. Most importantly, multidisciplinary care is crucial in optimizing outcomes for patients with high-risk cSCC of the head and neck.

Purpose: This guideline reviews the evidence for the use of definitive and postoperative radiation therapy (RT) in patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC)., Methods: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 5 key questions focused on indications for RT in the definitive and postoperative setting for BCC and cSCC, as well as dose-fractionation schemes, target volumes, basic aspects of treatment planning, choice of radiation modality, and the role of systemic therapy in combination with radiation. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength., Results: The guideline recommends definitive RT as primary treatment for patients with BCC and cSCC who are not surgical candidates while conditionally recommending RT with an emphasis on shared decision-making in those situations in which adequate resection can lead to a less than satisfactory cosmetic or functional outcome. In the postoperative setting, a number of indications for RT after an adequate resection are provided while distinguishing the strength of the recommendations between BCC and cSCC. One key question is dedicated to defining indications for regional nodal irradiation. The task force suggests a range of appropriate dose-fractionation schemes for treatment of primary and nodal volumes in definitive and postoperative scenarios. The guideline also recommends against the use of carboplatin concurrently with adjuvant RT and conditionally recommends the use of systemic therapies for unresectable primaries where treatment may need escalation., Conclusions: Defining the role of RT in the management of BCC and cSCC has been hindered by a lack of high-quality evidence. This document synthesizes available evidence to define practice guidelines for the most common clinical situations. We encourage practitioners to enroll patients in prospective trials and to approach care in a multidisciplinary fashion whenever possible., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)