SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies?

SINQ 20110028 includes a note that states "Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO." That case is a little different in that the Hurthle cell carcinoma was stated to be a probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma. The case above does not include that statement.

Is Hurthle cell carcinoma a type of follicular carcinoma? Does rule M6 (follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid w/in 60 days) apply, report a single primary? Or does rule M17 (tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes different at the third digit) apply thus leading to multiple primaries (8290 for Hurthle cell and 8260 for papillary thyroid carcinoma)?

In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?

The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit?

The term "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" is now being used, instead of the previous classification of an encapsulated malignant thyroid tumor. Recent evidence supports a very minimal risk of aggressive behavior for these tumors, and pathologists in our area are no longer classifying these as malignant in the final diagnosis.

We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.

LIRADS (v2014) categories

M - Possible non-HCC malignancy

1 - Definitely Benign

2 - Probably Benign

3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC

4 - Probably HCC

5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)

A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date?

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."

Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?

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)?