SEER Inquiry System - Search

The pathology report reads: Urinary bladder, tumor over right ureteral orifice, biopsy: Urinary bladder mucosa (urothelium) and submucosa (lamina propria), with papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (previously known as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1 of 3), no invasion identified.

Patient had radical resection of pelvic giant cell tumor of bone in August 2012. Final diagnosis clarified that no features to suggest a frankly malignant giant cell tumor were identified.

July 2013 left upper lobe nodules were removed and found to be consistent with multifocal metastatic lung involvement with a previous pelvic giant cell tumor of bone. However, the pathology report comment specifies there are no histological high-grade features to suggest a malignancy:

While SINQ 20091087 may apply, these metastases clearly arrived in the lung by hematogenous spread. The previous SINQ note refers to a case where the implants/metastases can seed the surrounding pelvic and abdominal structures by rupture of the tumor or intraoperative tumor spillage. That type of spread is not quite the same as the current case showing tumor cells leaving the primary tumor/site and travelling through the blood to implant in the lungs.

Patient presents with an abnormal chest x-ray. PET reveals 4.6 cm left lower lobe mass and several additional bilateral nodules measuring up to 1.6 cm. Biopsy was recommended and is positive for metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm. ER/PR are positive. Mayo consult on biopsy agrees with histology. The differential diagnosis includes benign metastasizing leiomyoma and low grade leiomyosarcoma. Comment: If these nodules remain small and do not progressively grow would consider this metastasizing leiomyoma. Physicians state bilateral pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs low grade leiomyosarcoma. Tamoxifen was started. Patient has a history of uterine fibroids. Several months later, imaging reveals stable bilateral multi pulmonary nodules and left lower lobe mass but persistent. Surgery was recommended but cancelled due to insurance.

9/9/11 IMP: Presymptomatic cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1).

9/9/11 Brain MRI: FINDINGS: Total of 14 foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. In rt frontal lobe, total of 4 foci. Of remaining 10 small foci, 4 are in cerebellum, 1 in rightward pons, 1 in lt temporal lobe, 1 in lt occipital lobe, 1 in rt occipital lobe, 1 in posterior rt temporal lobe, & 1 in lt frontal lobe. Lesions in bilateral occipital lobes & lt temporal lobe are associated w/weighted signal suggestive of hemosiderin & are most c/w additional cavernous malformations. IMPRESSION: Just over a dozen scattered foci of gradient susceptibility throughout supra & infratentorium.

9/13/13 Brain MRI. Clinical diagnosis: Cerebral cavernous angiomas. FINDINGS: Approximately a dozen scattered foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. Remaining small foci identified w/in cerebellum, rightward pons, rt occipital lobe, rt temporal lobe, & lt frontal lobe. Many are less conspicuous than in 2011 & a few that were present on prior study are not evident on current exam. This is likely due to differences in technique. IMPRESSION: Redemonstration of numerous scattered foci c/w cavernous malformations.

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario?

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?

In the Collaborative Stage manual in general instructions this guideline exists:

"The extent of disease may be described only in terms of T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) characteristics. In such cases, assign the code in the appropriate field that corresponds to the TNM information. If there is a discrepancy between documentation in the medical record and the physician's assignment of TNM, the documentation takes precedence..." (Similar to language to use SEER information over TNM).