SEER Inquiry System - Search

Serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant (8460/2, C569) was included in the ICD-O-3 Behavior Code/term updates effective 1/1/2018 but marked as Not Reportable for 2018.

There have been multiple additional updates to the ICD-O but no further clarification as to the reportability of this histology. ICD-O-3.2 currently lists serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant (C569) as 8460/2 with no mention of reportability and no information provided in Includes/Excludes.

SINQ 20220032 instructs capturing this histology as reportable when diagnosed 1/1/2021 or later and occurring in the testis. The answer indicates this is reportable due to the /2 behavior code in ICD-O-3.2, but it does not specify that it is limited to specific sites.

Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant reportable for ovary? If so, what dates apply? Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant of the testis diagnosed after 1/1/2021 reportable?

Example

July 2022, Brain CT describes a mass appearing to be centered on the petrous aspect of the temporal bone with intracranial and extracranial extension.

July 2022, Brain MRI describes an extra-axial mass centered in the right jugular bulb with intracranial and intraosseous extension as well as extension within the internal jugular vein. 

September 2022, Resection operative report surgical findings are of a calcified mass filling middle ear, abutting stapes and appearing to enter the stapes obturator foramen, debulked. Final diagnosis is right middle ear meningioma, WHO grade I of III.

Is this a reportable intraosseous meningioma of the temporal bone/skull base, or a non-reportable meningioma arising in a meningocele within the middle ear?

Patient was diagnosed in September 2022 via excision of a 12 cm pelvic mass with final diagnosis of Myofibroblastoma with sarcomatous transformation.

Diagnosis comment states, “Most of the tumor is composed of conventional features of myofibroblastoma. However, a focal area demonstrates increased cellularity, fascicular growth and increased mitotic activity (up to 11 per 10 hpf), consistent with sarcomatous transformation (morphologically low to intermediate grade).”

Is this sarcomatous transformation describing a malignant transformation from an otherwise benign histology? If so, how should histology be coded in this case?

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

We are aware of the instruction for melanoma cases outlined in SINQ 20230034; however, it is unclear if this should also apply to cutaneous lymphomas and Kaposi sarcomas, or if the intent of the procedure is used for these specific types of skin cases that typically present with multifocal involvement.

Example 1: Patient is diagnosed March 2023 with primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma presenting as pink, tan patches on the trunk. Punch biopsy diagnosed CTCL and treatment was given via narrow band UVB phototherapy.

Example 2: Patient is diagnosed February 2023 with Kaposi sarcoma presenting as widespread violaceous macules, papules, plaques on the torso, bilateral extremities, and abdomen. Punch biopsy diagnosed Kaposi sarcoma.

Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed in January 2023 with final diagnosis of myxoid and epithelioid leiomyosarcoma.

Diagnosis comment states: The tumor is 15 cm per report. It grows in nests and poorly formed interanastomosing trabeculae and cords that are separated by abundant myxoid background. The cells have an epithelioid morphology with eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and very prominent nucleoli. The mitotic activity is overall low ranging from 1 to 3/10 HPFs.

Immunohistochemical stains performed at the outside hospital showed diffuse positivity for SMA, desmin, caldesmon, and PR. They are negative for CD10, claudin-4, calretinin, HBM45, MART1 (rare weakly positive cells), PANCK, and SOX10. This immunohistochemical profile supports a smooth muscle derivation of this neoplasm. As this tumor is extensively myxoid, diagnostic criteria differ from the spindle cell leiomyosarcoma.

Per Solid Tumor Rules Other Sites, Table 16: Uterine Corpus Histologies, Epithelioid Leiomyosarcoma (8891/3) and Myxoid Leiomyosarcoma (8896/3) are both subtypes of Sarcoma, NOS (8800/3).  Per Rule H21, use a combination code when there are multiple specific histologies AND the combination is listed in Table 2 OR there are coding instructions for the combination in the applicable histology Tables 3-21 OR you receive a combination code from Ask A SEER Registrar.  Since there is no combination listed in Table 2 and there is no instruction for the combination in Table 16, how should the histology be coded for this tumor?

Patient had a mandibular mucosal lesion resected in June of 2023, with a diagnosis of “atypical squamous proliferation” and case was forwarded to an expert in oral pathology for best classification. Subsequent slide review final diagnosis was “moderate to severe squamous dysplasia.” That slide review diagnosis goes on to state “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.”

Currently there is no ICD-O code for severe squamous dysplasia, however it is unclear if this terminology is equivalent to high grade squamous dysplasia (histology code 8077/2).

Patient had a right thyroid lobectomy on 12/2022, with initial diagnosis of “thyroid carcinoma pending expert consultation for definitive classification.”  The slide review documented in the addendum shows a final diagnosis of “Angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm, see comment.”  The subsequent comment states, “I would classify this lesion as an angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma.”  The comment goes on to state, “Additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin. The diagnosis remains unchanged.”