SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.

A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?

Pathology--Right breast, lumpectomy with needle localization: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast. A separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ is present. Sentinel lymph node, right breast, biopsy: One lymph node, negative for malignancy. No metastatic carcinoma is seen on slides stained with immunostain for cytokeratin (AE1/AE3). Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 1.2 cm. Histologic type: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Nuclear grade: Grade 1 (low). Mitotic rate: Score 1. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): DCIS is present. Estimated size (extent) of DCIS: 3 mm. Architectural patterns: Cribriform and papillary. Nuclear grade: grade 1 (low). Necrosis: Not identified. Margins: Margins uninvolved by encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Distance from closest margin: 8 mm, superior Margins uninvolved by DCIS. Distance from closest margin: 11 mm, superior Lymph nodes: Total number of lymph nodes examined (sentinel and nonsentinel): 1. Number of sentinel lymph nodes examined: 1. Number of lymph nodes with tumor cells: 0. Pathologic staging: Primary tumor: See comment. Regional lymph nodes: pN0(i-). Comment: In the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast (2012), it is stated that "there is no universal agreement on how to stage encapsulated papillary carcinomas. In the absence of conventional invasive carcinoma, the consensus of the WHO Working Group was that such lesions should be staged and managed as Tis disease."

10/27/2017 partial nephrectomy final path diagnosis: renal oncocytic neoplasm, favor hybrid oncocytic tumor. Comment:

For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting?

I have searched ICD-O-3 for a histology listing but could not locate. I also searched the SEER Inquiry database for possible answers, but none were found. The patient underwent a pediatric MRI of the brain of which final impression was: 1) Subependymoma nodules, cortical tubers, and SEGAs are seen bilaterally consistent with tuberous sclerosis.