SEER Inquiry System - Search

5/27/02 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)--papillary transitional cell carcinoma, +lamina propria, no muscle invasion. All urine cytologies in 2011 and 2012 (only follow up received) show no malignancy. 3/11/15 Lung fine needle aspirate--poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with urothelial carcinoma. 4/30/15 Renal pelvis biopsy--low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, no lamina propria invasion, no muscularis propria invasion.

Patient is an 11 month old with brain biopsy showing final diagnosis of pineal anlage tumor. How are behavior and histology coded for this rare tumor?

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.

Pathology report: Left lower lobe lung, Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 3.0 cm Additional dimensions: 2.5 x 2.0 cm; Tumor Focality: Unifocal; Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma Solid predominant with mucin production; Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated. Is the correct histology for this case 8230/3 (rule H5) or 8255/3 (rule H6)?

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.

Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).

Discussion: Example: Shave biopsy with superficial spreading melanoma, Breslow 0.25 mm, Clark level II. Excision with no residual melanoma and gross description of specimen size is 4.0 x 1.6 cm skin ellipse excised to a depth of 1.8 cm.

We have differing opinions in our registry.

Opinion 1: We can assume margins are greater than 1 cm based on the excision specimen size when there is no residual tumor on excision and all dimensions of the excision specimen are more than 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 40s range.

Opinion 2: We should assume the melanoma defect was in the middle of the excision specimen, so for a skin ellipse that is 4.0 x 1.6 cm, there would be a 2 cm and 0.8 cm margin (respectively) from the middle of the specimen, thus margins are not > 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 30s range.

Pathology--Final description: Uterus, cervix, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries, total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: Endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, well differentiated, FIGO 1/3. Myometrial invasion: focal myometrial invasion (30% of myometrium) Tumor size: 2 x2 cm Tumor site: Fundus, exophytic/polypoid lesion Gross description: The 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in diameter triangular endometrium is tan-red and smooth with a 2.0 x 2.0 cm tan-pink, exophytic fundic mass which extends on to both anterior and posterior aspects, 4.1 cm from the os.

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?