SEER Inquiry System - Search

A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?

Patient had a skin biopsy and this is the interpretation: NASAL SUPRATIP: INVASIVE BASAL CELL CARCINOMA OF SKIN WITH NEUROENDOCRINE DIFFERENTIATION

NOTE: The deep margin is positive for tumor; peripheral margins negative for tumor. The tumor has a basaloid appearance with focal areas appearing slightly squamoid, and it demonstrates myxoid/mucinous retraction from the stroma. It does not demonstrate peripheral palisading of cells within tumor nests and has nuclear chromatin which suggests neuroendocrine differentiation. Mitotic rate is more brisk than typical basal cell carcinoma as well. The differential diagnosis includes basal cell carcinoma with or without neuroendocrine differentiation, basal cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma and metastatic small cell carcinoma. The tumor is further characterized per immunostains x 9 (controls work well). Tumor cells are positive for Ber EP4 and p63; focally positive for Chromagranin; while negative for EMA, CK20, CK7, TTF-1, CD56 and Synaptophysin. Overall, the staining pattern supports basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation.

Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: 

-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template). 

-Surgical margins free of tumor.

Kidney, right, nephrectomy:

Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)

Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified

Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)

Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm

Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney

Focality: Multifocal

Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm

Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4

Microscopic extent of tumor:

Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified

Renal sinus invasion: Not identified

Other: N/A

Renal vein involvement: Not identified

Adrenal gland present: No

Involved by tumor: N/A

Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A

Cancer at resection margin: Not identified

Location(s): N/A

Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells

Hilar lymph nodes present: No

Number of involved/number present: N/A

"Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence."

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.

Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).

And

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.

We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.

LIRADS (v2014) categories

M - Possible non-HCC malignancy

1 - Definitely Benign

2 - Probably Benign

3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC

4 - Probably HCC

5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)

A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date?