SEER Inquiry System - Search

Sarcomotoid (8318) is listed as a specific renal cell subtype in the MP/H manual, but it is not listed as a renal cell subtype in the most recent WHO blue book for Urinary Organs. We are wondering if sarcomatoid features, as listed in the CAP protocol format in the following example, should be ignored when coding histology?

Left kidney, radical nephrectomy:

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma, with the following features:

Tumor size: 8.5 X 6 cm.

Tumor focality: Unifocal.

Macroscopic extent of tumor: Tumor limited to kidney.

Sarcomatoid features: Present (<20% of tumor shows sarcomatoid features).

Histologic grade: G4.

Microscopic tumor extension: Tumor limited to kidney.

Margins: All margins negative for invasive carcinoma.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

8/1/2016 Left Abdomen biopsy: Early melanoma in situ (C445-2, 8720/2).

9/2/2016 Upper back: Superficially invasive malignant melanoma (C445-9, 8720/3).

Does rule M4 apply and multiple primaries should be reported or does rule M8 apply and a single primary should be reported?

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.

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?

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 states: Record size in specified order using a. The largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment. See Coding Instructions 7-9 below. b. The largest size from all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis, in the absence of disease progression when no treatment is administered. #7 Priority of imaging/radiographic techniques: Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code clinical size when there is no more specific size information from a biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report. It should be taken as a lower priority, but over a physical exam.

The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085.

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.