SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.

In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.

It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.

Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?

The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.

However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.

SINQ 20160023 and the Solid Tumor Rules indicate NET G1 (or well differentiated NET) is coded as 8240 and NET G2 is coded as 8249.

Clarification regarding grade coding in the CAnswer Forum indicates well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor refers to the histologic type, and not the grade. Therefore, the term well differentiated is ignored for the purpose of grade coding.

Neither of these sources clarifies how to code histology for a tumor diagnosed as well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.

After a little research, it appears as though Endometrial Dedifferentiated carcinoma is a relatively new term and is set to be included in ICD-O-3.2:

http://www.iacr.com.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=100&Itemid=577

If you look at the link on that page for All Additions, Changes, and Revisions to the ICD-O-3, 1st Revision for ICDO-3.2, there is 8020/3 Dedifferentiated carcinoma. Currently, 8020/3 is Carcinoma, undifferentiated, NOS. For 2018 diagnosis, would you use 8020/3 for a predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma as stated in the pathology: Uterus, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes; supracervical hysterectomy/BSO: Predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma in the endometrium, FIGO grade 1 Portion of omentum, omental/anterior abdominal wall/ round ligament/uterine/small bowel mesenteric tumor nodules all involved by dedifferentiated carcinoma. Synoptic reads as follows: Histological Type: Endometrioid carcinoma, NOS Dedifferentiated carcinoma predominantly Histological Grade: Endometrioid carcinoma, FIGO grade 1.

7/25/17

Part A: Left breast at 8:00, 5 CFN: Specimen type: Stereotactic biopsy. Tumor type: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), cribriform type. Tumor size: The largest focus of DCIS measures 1 mm in greatest dimension as measured on the slide. Nuclear grade: 2 (Intermediate grade). Microcalcifications: Present. Other findings: Stromal fibrosis, microcalcification and fat necrosis.

11/1/17

A. Sentinel lymph node, left: One lymph node, negative for metastatic tumor on three levels of routine H\T\E and pan cytokeratin immunohistochemical stains.

B. Left breast: Procedure: Total mastectomy with skin and nipple. Specimen Laterality: Left. Lymph Node Sampling: Yes, portion A. Specimen Integrity: Intact. Histologic Type: Extensive ductal carcinoma in situ and one focus of Invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features. Histologic Grade (Nottingham Histologic Score): Glandular Differentiation: Score 3 Nuclear Grade: Score 2. Mitotic Count: Score 1. Total Nottingham score 6 (grade 2, moderately differentiated). Tumor Size: 3.3 x 2 mm (0.33 x 0.2 cm) measured on slide (B3). Tumor Site: Lower inner quadrant of left breast. Tumor Focality: Unifocal. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Present, cribriform, solid and micropapillary types with focal necrosis and calcifications. Size of DCIS: Number of blocks examined: Thirty (30). Number of blocks with DCIS: Thirteen (13). Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS): Not identified, Lymphovascular Invasion: Present. Perineural Invasion: Not identified. Other Findings: Changes consistent with previous biopsy site. Cysts, foci of atypical ductal hyperplasia, focal ductal hyperplasia, adenosis, stromal fibrosis and microcalcifications. Skin (epidermis): Uninvolved. Nipple: Uninvolved. Margins: 1 mm from DCIS to the closest deep margin (slide B12). At least 10 mm (1 cm) from invasive carcinoma to deep margin. Estrogen receptor (ER, clone 1D5) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), high intensity, in greater than 95% of carcinoma cells. Progesterone receptor (PR, clone 16) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), moderate intensity in about 80% of the carcinoma cells. Her 2 by FISH performed on this material: Pending, an addendum to follow. Pathologic staging: pT1aN0(sn)MX (AJCC 7th edition). Dictated by: (Pathologist), MD Intradepartmental review.

Patient was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer (liver metstasiss) and started on Folfox with Avastin. The medical oncologist decided to continue maintenance treatment with Xeloda and Avastin.

Per Colon NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2019, interest in the use of maintenance therapy approach after first-line treatment of unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer is growing. In general, this approach involves intensive first-line therapy, followed by less intensive therapy until progression in patients with good response to initial treatment.

Colon Therapy

5/1/18 Colonoscopy biopsy: mod diff colon adenoca, MMR proficient, BRAF wild type

5/5/18 Liver biopsy: mets from colon cancer

6/18/18 " 11/20/2018 Med Onc: started 12 cycles Chemo - Folfox (Fluorouracil, leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) with Avastin

11/28/18 CT Pelvis: continued improvement in the liver mets; no residual tumor involving colon; no new mas or adenopathy in the chest, abdomen or pelvis

12/02/18 Med Onc follow up: Pt had tremendous response to chemotherapy and Avastin, cancer is not curable. Is amenable to maintenance therapy with Xeloda and Avastin; also amenable to descending colectomy in the future

1/7/19 Med Onc: starting maintenance treatment Xeloda + Avastin.

The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?

Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.

Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)

There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.

Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?