SEER Inquiry System - Search

How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast.

In 2/08 patient underwent resection of tumor of right frontal lobe. Path diagnosis showed a low grade glioma, favor low grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II). In 02/09 biopsy of a left thalamic mass showed glioblastoma mutiforme. Per rule M6 glioblastoma multiforme following a glial tumor is a single primary. Per path diagnosis, the first tumor represented a low grade glioma. However, oligodendroglioma is not on the glial branch of chart 1 in the MP/H rules.

MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.

Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.

However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.

Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.

One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."

4/20/06: skin left lateral thorax, excision: Pedunculated malignant melanoma, 0.5 CM in height, Clark's level 3, Breslow depth 0.5 CM, superficial ulceration noted. No host response. Margins clear.

6/19/06: Four sentinel LNs negative. Interferon therapy.

10/30/07: FNA of soft tissue, left lower abdomen: consistent with metastatic melanoma.

12/20/07 A) sentinel lymph node, left groin, biopsy: No morphologic or immunophenotypic findings support for metastatic melanoma (see comment). B) skin and subcutaneous tissue, left groin, excisional biopsy: Metastatic malignant melanoma (see comment). Lymphovascular invasion identified. Margins free of melanoma. Melanoma 1.5 MM from the closest designated deep margin and 5 MM from the designated 6:00 margin. C) skin, left groin/additional inferior margin, excisional biopsy: No significant histopathologic abnormality. No evidence of villus or melanoma or malignancy. Comment: A 0.8 cm metastatic nodular melanoma is present in the adipose tissue. The underlying skin is unremarkable. There is no evidence of ulceration, melanocytic lesion, melanoma in situ, or regression of melanoma. Block A1 is sent for immunohistochemical studies. The immunophenotypic findings provide no support for metastatic melanoma in lymph node. Please see the immunohistochemical study. The primary MD states "Recurrent intransit mets, left groin."