SEER Inquiry System - Search

The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.

The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.

The Solid Tumor Rules indicate bladder tumors that are urothelial carcinoma (8120) and small cell carcinoma (8041) are separate primaries per Rule M13 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 2). These are distinctly different histologies and, presumably, one would want to capture the small cell carcinoma (or small cell carcinoma component) as this has a worse prognosis.

However, if a subsequent bladder tumor is composed of invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, the histology is coded as 8045/3 per Rule H4, but this is not abstracted as a multiple primary. The only M Rule that applies is Rule M18 (Abstract a single primary when tumors do not meet any of the above criteria). The mixed histology code 8045 is not included in Table 2, so none of the histology-based M Rules apply. Is the subsequent mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma tumor (8045/3) the same primary as a previously diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) when these tumors are diagnosed within three years?

Code 9920/3 is not included under rule M3. However, disease process knowledge would indicate that because the patient has an underlying AML subtype, the leukemia cutis is due to the AML cells that have migrated into the skin tissue. This appears to be a single advanced disease process essentially diagnosed simultaneously.

In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol?

The Equivalent Terms and Definitions sections in the Solid Tumor Rules for these schemas identify which sites must have laterality coded, but there is no instruction for coding laterality when bilateral tumors are a single primary. The SEER Manual currently only indicates code 4 (bilateral) is seldom used (e.g., bilateral ovarian tumors, Wilms tumors, etc.) but does not indicate laterality code 4 should be used for CNS tumors. Is this note going to be updated or should a non-bilateral code be applied?

Example: MRI demonstrates multiple left-sided dural-based meningiomas including a 4.4 cm left posterior fossa meningioma, a 0.8 cm left frontal-parietal meningioma and a right posterior frontal meningioma. The large left posterior fossa meningioma was resected and proved atypical meningioma. Should the laterality be 4 (bilateral) as the patient had both left and right-sided meningiomas confirmed to be a single primary? Or should the laterality be coded as 2 (left) since only the large left-sided meningioma was proven to be a borderline tumor (atypical meningioma, 9539/1) and the others were benign?

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?

Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.

Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.

Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.

02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern

04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern

Synoptic report:

Procedure: Lobectomy

Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor

Tumor Site: Upper lobe

Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant

Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm)

Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe

Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0

Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12

Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal

Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition)

Primary Tumor (pT): pT3

Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0

It appears an argument could be made for both NLPHL (9659/3) and THRLBCL (9688/3). We favor coding NLPHL (9659/3) because the pathologist did specifically call this a Hodgkin lymphoma, and also specified that it only has a T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like pattern.