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.

Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?

1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS

6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma

8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ

2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?

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)?

Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?

The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the "excisional biopsy" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed.

A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?