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.

Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."

When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system.

Pathology report microscopic description: The tumor is a meningothelial neoplasm (EMA+; BCL-2 and CD34 negative) with prominent collagen deposition. Necrosis and prominent nucleoli are present; no other atypical features are seen. Mitoses are present, up to 2 per 10 high-powered fields. Final Diagnosis: Dura, bicoronal craniotomy (specimen A): Meningioma with atypical features.

There is no rule in benign brain and CNS section of Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) Rules stating to code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is (something less specific, i.e., adenocarcinoma). This rule is in other site chapters of MP/H but appears missing in the benign brain and CNS section.

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.

Pathology report: Brain tumor, left side: Gliotic cortex and subcortical white matter with meningioangiomatosis (see Comment). Comment This specimen represents a meningioangiomatous lesion located in the leptomeninges that projects along the Virchow-Robin spaces into the underlying cortex. The surrounding brain parenchyma demonstrates reactive changes with astrogliosis and microgliosis. An intraparenchymal neoplasm is not seen. Meningioangiomatosis is a rare benign meningovascular hamartomatous condition and usually appears in young patients.

Pathology report diagnosis: Urethral lesion: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, see microscopic. Clinical Information: Urethral Lesion/Hematura. Microscopic Description: The biopsy shows dilated ductal structures filled with anaplastic epithelium showing areas of comedo-type necrosis. The tumor cells have enlarged nuclei prominent nucleoli and mitoses are identified. Surrounding benign prostatic tissue is also present. Immunostains show that the tumor cells stain for PSA, PSAP, P504s but are negative for GATA-3. The other components of the PIN 4 stain CK5/14 and P63 stain the basal cells surrounding the tumor confirming the intraductal nature of the process. Intraductal carcinoma should not be confused with high grade PIN as the former is usually associated with high grade invasive tumor. Is this C619 and 8500/2?

The patient is diagnosed by bilateral mammograms suspicious for malignancy in both breasts. A biopsy is done on one breast and is positive. The physician states that he will not biopsy the contralateral breast, as the patient has consented to bilateral mastectomy. The patient receives neoadjuvant chemo, follow by bilateral mastectomies. Both breasts are negative for residual cancer, stated as a complete response. Based on "suspicious for malignancy" can we accession two primaries and assume bilateral complete response?

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

This specific histology (cribriform-morula variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma) is not found in the ICD-O and is not mentioned in the 2007 MP/H Manual. However, per a web search it appears that this is a distinct type of papillary thyroid carcinoma (http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/24/4/R109.full).

Example: Right lobectomy shows thyroid epithelial neoplasm, pending consultation.

Consultation: Thyroid gland, right lobe: papillary thyroid carcinoma, favor cribriform-morula variant.

Consultation Comment: IHC stains argue against medullary carcinoma. The histologic features of growth patterns and cytologic atypia (with rare grooves and pseudoinclusions) and the immunohistochemical profile support a diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, favoring the cribriform-morula variant. It is important to note that a significant number of patients with this variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma have been associated with familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome.