SEER Inquiry System - Search

This specific histology (cribriform-morula variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma) is not found in the ICD-O and is not mentioned in the 2007 MP/H Manual. However, per a web search it appears that this is a distinct type of papillary thyroid carcinoma (http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/24/4/R109.full).

Example: Right lobectomy shows thyroid epithelial neoplasm, pending consultation.

Consultation: Thyroid gland, right lobe: papillary thyroid carcinoma, favor cribriform-morula variant.

Consultation Comment: IHC stains argue against medullary carcinoma. The histologic features of growth patterns and cytologic atypia (with rare grooves and pseudoinclusions) and the immunohistochemical profile support a diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, favoring the cribriform-morula variant. It is important to note that a significant number of patients with this variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma have been associated with familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome.

When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system.

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 had radical resection of pelvic giant cell tumor of bone in August 2012. Final diagnosis clarified that no features to suggest a frankly malignant giant cell tumor were identified.

July 2013 left upper lobe nodules were removed and found to be consistent with multifocal metastatic lung involvement with a previous pelvic giant cell tumor of bone. However, the pathology report comment specifies there are no histological high-grade features to suggest a malignancy:

While SINQ 20091087 may apply, these metastases clearly arrived in the lung by hematogenous spread. The previous SINQ note refers to a case where the implants/metastases can seed the surrounding pelvic and abdominal structures by rupture of the tumor or intraoperative tumor spillage. That type of spread is not quite the same as the current case showing tumor cells leaving the primary tumor/site and travelling through the blood to implant in the lungs.

Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?

In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?

The physician consult in this case further specifies that the large granular lymphocyte disorder represents an autoimmune disease of autoimmune T-cell mediated mechanism. Is this a reportable diagnosis?