SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pathology shows: Right liver lobe, partial hepatectomy " intraductal papillary neoplasm with high grade dysplasia.

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.

Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:

Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less

Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7

Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7

Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8

Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10

Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.

The prostate-related fields include:

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

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 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 has only a LUL tumor on imaging. The tumor board initially states, possibly a mixed tumor, likely IIIA SCC and/or IIIA or B small cell. Later, the physician refers to it as "Stage III lung cancer, mixed histology with small cell in the lymph node and squamous cell in the LUL mass." Patient has no further workup and has declined therapy.

We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.

Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.

Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."

AFS1-AFS2-frozen section control, endomyometrium; AFS3-frozen section control, subserosal intramural mass; A4-anterior cervix; A5-posterior cervix; A6-anterior cervical endometrial junction; A7-posterior cervical endometrial junction; A8-A10-anterior endomyometrium, including tumor; A11-A13-posterior endomyometrium, including tumor and adjacent mass; A14-random section subserosal mass; A15-left parametrium at margin of resection; A16-right parametrium at margin of resection; A17-A18-left ovary and fallopian tube; A19-A20-right ovary and fallopian tube. The final diagnosis includes Endometrial adenocarcinoma, favor serous carcinoma, with papillary and solid areas. Tumor involves: Cervix present, Right ovary, Left ovary, Right fallopian tube, Left fallopian tube, Right parametrium, Left parametrium.