Cancer Synoptic Reporting Project Group

21 March 2022 at 16:30 UTC

Discussion items

ItemDescriptionOwnerNotesAction
1Cancer modeling changes

Review editorial changes for primary and metastatic cancer disorders.  See links in action section


Briefing Note Primary and Metastatic Member Forum March 2022 (1).pdf

Primary and Metastatic draft EAG Briefing Note v1 CMAG (1).pdf

2Lung cancer focalityScott Campbell
  1. Focal, non-focal (multiple)
  2. Local metastases - sidedness? 
  3. count of local metastases

3Treatment effect

Continue discussion:

What are we measuring when assessing "treatment effect"?  

Is this a histologic change?  Viability of tumor cells?

  1. Primary site
  2. Lymph node


Note: SSA wonders about property in this model

  1. Primary site



  2. Lymph node


Will review model.  This observable pertains to the process of regression/change in the neoplasm after antineoplastic therapy.  So, observable could be modeled as presence of process changes.


Still a discussion.  What is being measured?  (Degree of presence of tumor). Can this be reproduced...base question is tumor there or not s/p therapy...tumor gone is best...everything else is questionable for the patient

4PatternsScott Campbell
  1. How to handle patterns within histologies
    1. Lung (Lepidic, acinar)
    2. DCIS
    3. Bladder (differentiation)
We can use the morphologic descriptors...maybe...TBD
5AJCC update?Any updates that can be shared?Jim Case meeting with AJCC on Wednesday 26-Jan to continue/finalize contract issues

Meeting Files

  File Modified
PNG File image2022-2-7_8-58-39.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-2-7_8-57-30.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-2-7_8-56-29.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-2-7_8-55-34.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-2-7_8-55-11.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-1-24_11-25-50.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-1-24_10-37-22.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-1-24_10-36-24.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2022-1-24_10-35-11.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File Screen Shot 2022-01-10 at 9.02.45 AM.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2021-12-13_9-24-30.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2021-12-13_9-3-22.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2020-8-24_15-2-23.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2020-8-10_12-42-19.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2020-7-27_15-22-43.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PNG File image2020-8-24_15-4-25.png 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PDF File Primary and Metastatic draft EAG Briefing Note v1 CMAG (1).pdf 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell
PDF File Briefing Note Primary and Metastatic Member Forum March 2022 (1).pdf 2022-Mar-21 by Scott Campbell




Previous Meetings

TitleCreatorModified
No content found.

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. Sorry for being late yesterday, I wasn't aware of the change of time.


    Just a brief comment on the metastasizing benign entities: There is a discussion on benign metastasizing leiomyoma in Rosai's textbook (current 11th edition p1328):

    . . . We favor the designation of low-grade leiomyosarcoma, once these bland tumors have been found to metastasize and thus declared their biological potential; in this regard, it may be opportune to quote here Julian Huxley—the famous biologist, zoologist, humanist, and popular writer—who, in his lecture on “Biological aspects of cancer,” given at the Sloan Kettering Institute in 1955, stated when discussing the policy for designating lesions solely on the basis of their morphology: “This seems a regrettable example of specialist scholasticism. Cancer (malignancy) must be defined operatively in terms of what the tumor cells do, not what they look like; otherwise the term ceases to have biological meaning.”

    In another paragraph, he also refers to pleomorphic adenoma.

    Following this argumentation, I would model every metastasized neoplasm as malignant, being aware, that for some neoplasms histology might fail to adequately predict this behavior. Regarding terminology, I would suggest not to model any benign metastasizing disorders.

    Same should refer to neuroendocrine tumors: If I understand correctly, the term tumor has been adopted to highlight that patients with metastasis have an excellent survival.

    In the same line of argumentation I would suggest to model noninvasive papillary carcinoma of the urinary tract to subsume under benign neoplasms, intraepithelial neoplasia or precancerosis despite its designation.