SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

The patient had a mediastinal mass biopsy showing fibrosclerotic tissue with patchy lymphohistiocytic foci and scattered plasma cells, followed by a retroperitoneal mass biopsy showing fibrohistiocytic infiltrate. Erdheim-Chester disease is not reportable per the Heme Database. However, the physician specifically states this is a malignant disorder.

Patient presented to hospital ED and had brain MRI that revealed 3.2 cm space occupying lesion in region of the left CPA and trigeminal vesicle nerve compatible with epidermoid tumor.

The pathologist noted this was a challenging brain neoplasm that did not easily fit into a specific WHO diagnostic classification. Multiple differential diagnoses were given including pilomyxoid astrocytoma, ganglioglioma and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET), but there were no definitive features characteristic of any of these tumors. In the Comment section following the Final Diagnosis, it further states: "In summary, the tumor appears to be a difficult to classify non-infiltrating glial/glioneuronal neoplasm without definitive high-grade features."

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.

Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?

In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?

Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation.