SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."

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

PI-RADS (v2) categories:

PI-RADS 1 - Very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present)

PI-RADS 2 - Low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present)

PI-RADS 3 - Intermediate (the presence of clinically significant cancer is equivocal)

PI-RADS 4 - High (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)

PI-RADS 5 - Very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present)

A previous SINQ 20010094 indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, and SINQ 20160008 indicates we can use LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis, but those definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scans impression, which states PI-RADS category 5, as the Diagnosis Date?

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.

Pathology report: Left lower lobe lung, Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 3.0 cm Additional dimensions: 2.5 x 2.0 cm; Tumor Focality: Unifocal; Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma Solid predominant with mucin production; Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated. Is the correct histology for this case 8230/3 (rule H5) or 8255/3 (rule H6)?

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

Surgery text indicates TAH-BSO with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. The pathology report indicates the specimen includes: Uterine corpus, cervix, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes, bilateral parametria. The Gross Description also indicates: Representative sections submitted in 16 cassettes as follows: A1: Anterior cervix A2: Posterior cervix A3: Full thickness anterior lower uterine segment A4: Full thickness posterior lower uterine segment A5: Tumor A6-A7: Full thickness anterior endomyometrium to include tumor A8-A10: Full thickness posterior endomyometrium with tumor A11: Representative sections of right fallopian tube and fimbria A12: Representative sections of right ovary A13: Representative sections of left fallopian tube and fimbria A14: Representative sections of left ovary A15: Right parametrial tissue A16: Left parametrial tissue A17-23: Remainder of cervix.

A dementia patient has been managed for a persistent right cheek skin lesion that has been slow growing for about 5 years. It was biopsied in 12/23/15 revealing a Breslow 0.12 mm lentigo maligna melanoma by an outside provider. A larger resection of the lesion on 2/3/16 demonstrated a Breslow 0.30 mm lentigo maligna melanoma with melanoma in situ present at the margins per the available pathology report. There was no statement in the record that any additional treatment was planned or necessary.

Patient healed well from the 2/3/16 procedure but developed a recurrent lesion in May that was biopsied on 5/10/16 by the same outside provider which again reveal lentigo maligna melanoma. 7/5/16 Reexcision at the current facility revealed a Breslow 6.1 mm lentigo maligna melanoma, Clarks level V. This was a cutaneous tumor per the path report and not a subcutaneous nodule. Clinically, the MD called this a , but there was no slide comparison to the previous melanoma.

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.