SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report).

WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise.

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.

The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that

Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)?

Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).

5/27/02 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)--papillary transitional cell carcinoma, +lamina propria, no muscle invasion. All urine cytologies in 2011 and 2012 (only follow up received) show no malignancy. 3/11/15 Lung fine needle aspirate--poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with urothelial carcinoma. 4/30/15 Renal pelvis biopsy--low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, no lamina propria invasion, no muscularis propria invasion.

Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here?

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

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?