SEER Inquiry System - Search

According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075).

Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3).

According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.

According to the literature, PMH is a low-grade malignant vascular neoplasm of different tissue planes including skin and soft tissue. However, the references also state: PMH is a cutaneous tumor that behaves in an indolent fashion. There is no indication that this was a malignant diagnosis.

12/3/18 Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Superficial squamous epithelium demonstrating hyperkeratosis and fragments of keratin debris, no tumor seen.

Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

NOTE: The submitted immunohistochemical slides were reviewed. Positive and negative controls reacted appropriately. The tumor cells demonstrate immunoreactivity to CK AE1/AE3 and CK7. The CD31 immunoreactivity described in the report cannot be confirmed as only the positive control is submitted for review. The tumor cells are negative for desmin, CD45, CD68, S-100, CD34, SMA, CD20, and HHV8. The proliferative index via Ki-67 is approximately 10%. The morphology (described below) and immunohistochemistry performed are compatible with a pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

12/4/18 Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Foot, left bone lesion, biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

Note: The patient's imaging findings were reviewed in conjunction with this case, revealing numerous lytic lesions of the tibia, fibula, talus, tarsal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones. Additionally, as per the medical record, also reviewed in conjunction with this case, there are lesions of the skin. Thus, an extensive immunohistochemical panel was performed in an attempt to support the morphologic findings in this case, which were morphologically similar to the patient's skin biopsy. The tumor cells demonstrate strong immunoreactivity to pancytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3) and vimentin with moderate immunoreactivity to Fli-1. The tumor cells demonstrate weak immunoreactivity to epithelial membrane antigen. INI-1 is retained. There is focal immunoreactivity to CD31 although this is limited to the edges of the tissue fragments. The tumor cells are negative for HHV-8, CD34, smooth muscle actin, CK8/18, desmin, CD99, and Bcl-2. The combination of morphologic (see below for microscopic description) and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma. Fresh tissue was submitted for karyotype analysis at the time of intraoperative consultation; however, it revealed only a normal appearing male karyotype. Thus, molecular confirmation was sought. The original slides and a paraffin block were submitted for FOSB rearrangement analysis, as pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is known to have recurrent rearrangements with FOSB. Additional immunohistochemistry performed at (FACILITY) demonstrating immunoreactivity for ERG, supporting a vascular origin for this neoplasm. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated that 13% of the cells examined show FOSB rearrangement. While this FISH probe is for investigational purposes, the above findings support the diagnosis of pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

According to the literature, CIC gene rearrangement sarcomas in young patients are soft tissue sarcomas with an aggressive clinical course and may have previously been grouped under the Ewing-like family of tumors or as undifferentiated round cell sarcomas. There is currently no guideline in the solid tumor rules for coding a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma. However, coding the histology to 8800 (sarcoma, NOS) seems unlikely to capture the more aggressive nature of these tumors. Can a more specific histology be coded?

According to the ICD-O-3, the histology for IPMN adenoma is 8453/0 is non-reportable. However, per SINQ 20021099, this is reportable.

According to the AJCC CAnswer Forum (https://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/node/160948), celiac axis nodes are considered regional for the liver. However, for liver primaries, Extent of Disease (EOD) regional lymph nodes list the following as regional lymph nodes:

• Caval
• Hepatic, NOS
  • Hepatic artery
  • Hepatic pedicle
  • Inferior vena cava
  • Porta hepatis (portal) (hilar) [in hilus of liver]
• Periportal
• Portal vein
• Regional lymph node(s), NOS

Based on this information, should celiac axis lymph nodes be considered as regional for liver primaries when coding EOD Regional Nodes?

According to the 2018 SEER Manual, Sentinel Lymph Nodes (SLNs) Examined and SLNs Positive are included in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive when both a sentinel node biopsy procedure and a subsequent dissection procedure are performed or a sentinel node biopsy procedure is performed during the same procedure as the regional node dissection.

According to our pathologist and oncologist, the terms "malignant" and "benign" do not apply to GIST. Rather, the term "high risk for malignant behavior" is used. This is based on tumor size: greater than 5 cm and mitotic activity: greater than 5 mitoses/50 hpf.

According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?

According to an oncologist at the research hospital in our region, these drugs are given in combination with chemotherapy for two reasons:

1) To preserve ovarian function.

2) The agents may be more effective in treating breast cancer when given in conjunction with chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.