SEER Inquiry System - Search

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.

Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).

And

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.

The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: 

-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template). 

-Surgical margins free of tumor.

Kidney, right, nephrectomy:

Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)

Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified

Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)

Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm

Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney

Focality: Multifocal

Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm

Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4

Microscopic extent of tumor:

Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified

Renal sinus invasion: Not identified

Other: N/A

Renal vein involvement: Not identified

Adrenal gland present: No

Involved by tumor: N/A

Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A

Cancer at resection margin: Not identified

Location(s): N/A

Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells

Hilar lymph nodes present: No

Number of involved/number present: N/A

"Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence."

The patient underwent a polypectomy. The endoscopy report noted the "single piece polypectomy" only partially removed the polyp/mass as the remainder of the mass was more fixed to the wall. The margins were not noted on the pathology report, but were presumably positive given the endoscopy report and the subsequent low anterior resection (LAR) that proved macroscopic residual tumor. Should the date of the polypectomy be recorded in Date of First Surgical Procedure field? Or would the date of the subsequent LAR be recorded since macroscopic residual tumor was present following polypectomy?

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.

SINQ 20081076 states carcinoid tumorlets of the lung are not reportable and are defined as being less than 5 mm in diameter and benign. Per the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumours, microcarcinoid tumors are precursor lesions/nodules measuring greater than 0.5 mm, but less than 5 mm (0.5 cm). Is the term microcarcinoid tumor equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet, and therefore not reportable? Or is a microcarcinoid tumor a reportable type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET)?