SEER Inquiry System - Search

02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern

04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern

Synoptic report:

Procedure: Lobectomy

Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor

Tumor Site: Upper lobe

Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant

Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm)

Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe

Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0

Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12

Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal

Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition)

Primary Tumor (pT): pT3

Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0

SINQ 20170043 is a similar question about an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with microinvasion, but the answer seems to be specifically referencing mucinous tumors only. It is unclear if that SINQ could be applied to this case. In addition, we were not sure how to interpret the nodal involvement. The physician assessment after surgery was low grade serous carcinoma, chemo not recommended and letrozole started.

Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.

Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.

Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.

The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site.

Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries?

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?

The Solid Tumor Rules indicate bladder tumors that are urothelial carcinoma (8120) and small cell carcinoma (8041) are separate primaries per Rule M13 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 2). These are distinctly different histologies and, presumably, one would want to capture the small cell carcinoma (or small cell carcinoma component) as this has a worse prognosis.

However, if a subsequent bladder tumor is composed of invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, the histology is coded as 8045/3 per Rule H4, but this is not abstracted as a multiple primary. The only M Rule that applies is Rule M18 (Abstract a single primary when tumors do not meet any of the above criteria). The mixed histology code 8045 is not included in Table 2, so none of the histology-based M Rules apply. Is the subsequent mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma tumor (8045/3) the same primary as a previously diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) when these tumors are diagnosed within three years?

The right breast ultrasound shows a 1.4 cm mass at 8 o'clock and a separate mass .6 cm at 7 o'clock (site code for both C50.5). Pathology report: Right 8 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2), right 7 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2). Then, another facility performs a right breast lumpectomy (operative note not available). Outside Facility: Right breast lumpectomy pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma .6cm (8500/3) multifocal DCIS .5cm greatest dimension tumor site right breast NOS.

Should we use Rule M12-Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant. Note: Each row in the table is a distinctly different histology. So would this be two primaries C50.5 (8504/2) and C50.9 (8500/3)?