SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient was diagnosed with a biopsy-proven 12/2020 LUL SCC treated with radiation only, followed by a right hilar lymph node biopsy in 07/2022, that proved “metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma” per pathology and treated with radiation, followed by a biopsy-proven 12/2022 RLL SCC to be treated with immunotherapy only. The imaging never definitively identified a lung tumor that can be assumed to be a primary adenocarcinoma tumor.  In 06/2022, a PET scan only described a “strongly PET positive Rt inferior hilar LN vs infrahilar pulmonary mass,” as well as the subsequently biopsy-proven SCC in the RLL (12/2022 SCC primary). The biopsy path indicates this was a right hilar lymph node metastasis and does not indicate this is an infrahilar pulmonary mass. No other PET positive pulmonary lesions were seen at the time.

The oncologist’s assessment indicates the right hilar node was the only positive finding on the biopsy, and it was unclear if this right hilar node metastasis was from the left lung or if the primary was “not detectable.” The oncologist summarized this as a LUL lung lesion radiated for SCC, a right hilar lesion radiated for adenocarcinoma, and a RLL lung lesion on pathology found to be SCC.

Should the interval occurring metastatic adenocarcinoma be accessioned as a separate lung, NOS primary based on the histology difference? While the Solid Tumor Rules do not apply to metastasis, the oncologist did treat these three malignancies separately and does not indicate the hilar lymph node metastasis was felt to be from either SCC primary.

Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.

Patient presented with hoarseness and palpable neck mass. No palpable adenopathy (per hospital abstract).

02/19/16 Thyroid Ultrasound: Right thyroid lobe with mass, 63X35X44XMM (per hospital abstract).

06/01/16 Right thyroid lobectomy, radical resection right laryngeal tumor (per hospital abstract).

06/01/16 Operative Procedure: Tumor was invading laryngeal soft tissue and cartilage anteriorly and to the right. There may be a small amount of residual tumor invading cartilage although this was not clear (per hospital abstract).

GROSS DESCRIPTION: 1. The specimen is received fresh for intraoperative consultation, labeled with the patient's name and "right thyroid mass." It consists of a 3.0 x 2.2 x 2.0 cm irregular, ragged fragment of tan-red, firm, rubbery soft tissue. The specimen is serially sectioned to reveal a tan-red, gritty cut surface with focal fleshy areas. A touch prep is performed. A representative section is submitted for frozen section analysis in 1FSA. A portion of tissue is submitted for flow cytometry with the accession number MSO-16-1786. The remaining specimen is entirely submitted in 4 additional cassettes (1B-1E). 2. The specimen is received in formalin and is labeled "right thyroid lobe." It consists of a thyroid lobe measuring 4.3 x 4.0 x 1.3 cm and weighing 10.0 g. The external surface is covered by a thin fibrous capsule with a focal area of roughening on the posterior surface. The lobe is inked black posterior, blue anterior and orange isthmus margin. Serial sectioning reveals a red-brown and beefy parenchyma. A definitive nodule is not grossly identified. The entire specimen is serially submitted from superior to inferior in 9 cassettes. 3. The specimen is received in formalin, labeled with the patient's name and "right neck/laryngeal mass." It consists of an irregular, focally nodular red-tan mass measuring 7.0 x 5.5 x 4.0 cm and weighing 54 g. The convex portion of the specimen is mostly encapsulated with focal adherent red-brown striated skeletal muscle. The concave portion of the specimen is focally ragged and disrupted. The convex portion of the specimen is inked black and the concave portion is inked blue. The specimen is serially sectioned to reveal a white-grey to red, granular, gritty cut surface with focal fleshy areas. Representative sections are submitted in 12 cassettes.

Final DX DIAGNOSIS: 1. Right thyroid mass excision Plasma cell tumor /plasmacytoma 3 cm. Tumor cells are positive for kappa and negative for lambda immunostains. Recommend correlation with flow cytometry MSO-16-1786, monoclonal plasma cell population with cytoplasmic kappa positivity. Ki-67 stains 7 percent of cells. Focal stromal hyalinization. Congo red stain for amyloid negative. No thyroidal tissue identified. 2. Right thyroid lobe excision Benign thyroid tissue with focal solid cell nest negative for malignancy. One out of two 1/2 perithyroidal lymph nodes positive for plasma cell tumor. 3. Laryngeal mass excision Plasma cell tumor /plasmacytoma 7 cm involving soft tissue and skeletal muscle. Tumor cells are positive for kappa and negative for lambda immunostains. Ki-67 stains 7 percent of cells. Focal stromal hyalinization and calcification. Congo red stain for amyloid negative

2012 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Right

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

2024 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Left

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

Patient was diagnosed with carcinosarcoma of Mullerian origin on omental/pelvic biopsies in March 2021. First course treatment was neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by July 2021 resection showing residual primary endometrial carcinosarcoma with cervical stromal invasion and involvement of bilateral tubes/ovaries, omentum, and mesenteric nodule. Additional findings included endometrium with background endometroid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN).

Left breast invasive lobular ca diagnosed 3/00 and treated with a lumpectomy, but with multiple positive margins; she received no post operative radiation or other medical treatment (unknown why). 10/08 core biopsy of "an area of distortion" near the scar site is positive for invasive lobular ca. The radiologist states "compatible with recurrence at her previous lumpectomy site" on an x-ray report.

One thought is that this should not be a new primary because the patient was never disease free (multiple positive margins) and the patient received incomplete treatment. Or should this be a new primary because the tumors are diagnosed more that 5 years apart?

Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?

The Solid Tumor Rules instruct us not to use differentiation for coding histology unless it is specifically listed in the table. The terminology non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation is not in lung histology Table 2.

However, SINQ 20150033, prior to Solid Tumor rules, indicates this diagnosis should be coded to 8574 (adenocarcinoma/carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation).

This presentation appears to represent distinctly different histologies. However, because the 2018 histology diagnosis is not in the table and the prior SINQ appears to disagree with current instruction, it is not clear how to apply the M rules to this case. The outcome of the histology coding will affect the number of primaries reported in this case.

CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct?