| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160048 | Reportability--Kidney: Is renal cell neoplasm of oncocytosis reportable based on the pathology from a nephrectomy? See Discussion.  | 
	        
	          The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: 
 -Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template). 
 -Surgical margins free of tumor. 
 Kidney, right, nephrectomy: 
 Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note) 
 Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified 
 Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor) 
 Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm 
 Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney 
 Focality: Multifocal 
 Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm 
 Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4 
 Microscopic extent of tumor: 
 Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified 
 Renal sinus invasion: Not identified 
 Other: N/A 
 Renal vein involvement: Not identified 
 Adrenal gland present: No 
 Involved by tumor: N/A 
 Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A 
 Cancer at resection margin: Not identified 
 Location(s): N/A 
 Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells 
 Hilar lymph nodes present: No 
 Number of involved/number present: N/A 
 "Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence."  | 
	        
	          Do not report Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis. According to our expert pathologist consultant, these neoplasms do not behave "in a malignant fashion." They are not currently classified as malignant and are not reportable to cancer registries.  | 
	        
	          2016 | 
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160024 | Reportability--Melanoma: Please explain how a CTR is to interpret the guideline in the MP/H rules (Cutaneous Melanoma): Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. Is this to mean that evolving melanoma in situ is not reportable? Or should we follow the guidelines in SEER Question 20130022 that states the reportability terms for melanoma and melanoma in situ.  | 
	        
	          Follow the guidelines in SINQ 20130022 for now. When the MP/H rules are revised, new instructions will be implemented. 
 See also SINQ 200120078 and 20110069.  | 
	        
	          2016 | |
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160071 | SEER Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: Can Clark's level classification still used to Summary Stage melanoma? It was previously used by AJCC TNM, but was not included in the 7th edition. I see it is still listed in the CAP protocols for melanoma.  | 
	        
	          Clark's level can be used to assign in situ, localized or regional summary stage. 
 If there is a discrepancy between the Clark’s level and the pathologic description of extent, use the higher Summary Stage code.  | 
	        
	          2016 | |
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology: What histology and how many primaries are coded for a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (rhabdomysarcoma) if the patient was diagnosed with seminoma of the testis in 2009 followed by a 2015 metastatic germ cell tumor in a retroperitoneal lymph node, stated to be a recurrence of the testicular cancer? See Discussion.  | 
	        
	          In September 2009 the patient was diagnosed with seminoma, classical type, following an orchiectomy. Testicular mass recurrence in 2014 was treated with chemotherapy. Then in April 2015 a retroperitoneal dissection of a peri-aortic LN was positive for mixed germ cell tumor with somatic type malignancy (rhabdomyosarcoma) involving 1/11 nodes. Path Comment: major component of tumor is teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma represents <5% of mass. Now in October 2016, the patient has a retroperitoneal mass biopsy positive for spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcomatous differentiation. The comment section of the pathology report states, "Given the history of a germ cell tumor w/ rhadbomosarcomatous component, the findings are consistent with a recurrence of rhabdomyosarcomatous component of germ cell tumor." Can a seminoma transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (see SINQ 20140082 - testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy)?  | 
	        
	          According to our expert pathologist consultant, yes, seminoma could transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy. He advises us to code this case as 9061/3. From our expert pathologist consultant: This occurs as "reprogramming" of the initial germ cell tumor/seminoma cell. The process is not understood, but genetic studies support this progression concept. Most often the next step is teratoma. It is out of the teratoma that the somatic malignancy usually comes. I do wonder about the possibility that this was really an embryonal carcinoma which resembles a seminoma - occasionally this can be a difficult separation. I wonder if they radiated the scrotum following the orchiectomy, also, given the scrotal recurrence.  | 
	        
	          2016 | 
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160075 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of "undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm"? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion.  | 
	        
	          Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies?  | 
	        
	          Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma."  | 
	        
	          2016 | 
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160043 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Should the term "dedifferentiation" be used to code sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)? Or is this typically referring to the grade, and not the histologic subtype? See Discussion.  | 
	        
	          Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).  | 
	        
	          Assign 8122/3 for urothelial carcinoma, extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation refers to the histologic type. 8122/3 is also correct for the following diagnoses. 
 Urothelial carcinoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma or sarcomatoid variant 8122/3 Urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatoid features 8122/3 
  | 
	        
	          2016 | 
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160078 | First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases?  | 
	        
	          Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section. Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment.  | 
	        
	          2016 | |
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160077 | First course treatment/Immunotherapy--Prostate: Is XGEVA, given for bone mets from prostate cancer, abstracted as immunotherapy, or is it an ancillary drug and not recorded?  | 
	        
	          Do not record XGEVA when given for bone mets from prostate cancer. See SEER*Rx for more information. 
 
 
 
  | 
	        
	          2016 | |
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160037 | Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: What is the histology code for an ovarian tumor described as a mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type?  | 
	        
	          Mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type, of the ovary is not reportable. The behavior is /1. There is no applicable histology code for this histology when it ocurs in the ovary.  | 
	        
	          2016 | |
| 
	 | 
	        
	          20160044 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: What is the appropriate histology code for a final diagnosis of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and/or pleomorphic sarcoma, undifferentiated? See Discussion.  | 
	        
	          Does the Other Sites MP/H Rule H17 apply in this case, which results in coding the higher histology 8805/3 (undifferentiated sarcoma)? Or does the "undifferentiated" statement only refer to grade, which results in coding histology to 8802/3 (pleomorphic sarcoma)?  | 
	        
	          Assign 8802/34 to pleomorphic cell sarcoma/undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Pleomorphic is more important than undifferentiated when choosing the histology code in this case. Undifferentiated can be captured in the grade code.  | 
	        
	          2016 | 
 Home
            