SEER Inquiry System - Search

Urinary: Transitional Cell Carcinoma and open prostatectomy: Path from Bladder: Papillary and solid transitional cell carcinoma of bladder - grade II and III Stage A.

Path from prostatectomy: The prostatic tissue samples shows areas of urothelia carcinoma in situ - related to the tumor present in the bladder.

Conclusion: Prostatectomy showing foci of transitional cell carcinoma in situ of prostatic urethra.

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.

The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix?

Patient has 2 tumors in the left ureter; one is transitional cell (8120) and one is papillary transitional cell (8130). Rule M6 says BLADDER tumors with any combination of the following histologies ... are a single primary. But this is not a bladder case. Rule M8 says urothelial tumors in 2 or more of the following sites are a single primary... but this is not in 2 or more sites. Rule M9 then says histologies different at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd digit are separate primaries. That makes this 2 primaries, but I do not think this should be 2 primaries.

How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?

We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.

Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?

Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, "received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a "TURBT" with no further description of the procedure.