SEER Inquiry System - Search

10/25/2023:  Patient presents to dermatology office with a questionable drug eruption having 3 weeks of papular eruptions of Trunk (Left Chest). Punch biopsies were taken that came back as immature hemopoietic infiltrate with monocytic differentiation. Comment: Myelodysplastic syndrome and leukemia cutis are possibilities. Addendum Report: Additional stains were prepared. ERG is strongly positive. CD1a and S100 do not stain the atypical cells.The controls stain appropriately. CD123 perform with appropriate control is also negative. The pattern is that of so-called "leukemia cutis" which could be seen in the clinical setting of myelodysplasia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) or precursor to acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AMML). Recommend work up. The only available information at present is a diagnosis of leukemia cutis, and that there was no prior history of a hematological malignancy in this patient.

Additional comments in this pathology report state "The entire case was sent in consultation to an ophthalmic pathologist. [Pathologist] assigns a conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia (C-MIN) score of 2-3 due to the upward pagetoid migration of small, dendritic melanocytes. A C-MIN score of 2-3 is between low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL; C-MIN 2) and high-grade conjunctival intraepithelial lesion (HG-CMIL; C-MIN 3). The older terminology for this lesion would be primary acquired melanosis (PAM) with mild to focally moderate atypia."

This term does not appear in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM), Appendix E1 of the SPCSM, or Solid Tumor Rules (specifically rule H3) . 

Please comment on these specific scenarios.

1. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, but the urologist is not considering this malignant, nor is the urologist treating for malignancy, but there is no clear statement from the physician that this is not reportable.  Should this case be abstracted?
2. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, and there is a statement by the physician that this is not yet malignant. Should this case be abstracted?
3. Prostate MRI with PIRADS 4 or 5; however, the treating urologist does not call this malignant and is not treating patient for prostate cancer.  [Example: 2024 Prostate MRI - PI-RADS 4. Follow up with Urologist states patient to repeat Prostate MRI in 1 year and continue with yearly PSA levels and there is no mention of prostate cancer other than the PI-RADS score]. Should this case be abstracted?

For example, a chest computed tomography showed multiple subsolid and ground glass pulmonary nodules measuring up to 6 mm; findings favored to reflect adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions.  A literature search seems to indicate that adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions include atypical adenomatous hyperplasia through invasive adenocarcinomas.

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.”

If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2?

We included this histology in SEER Workshop Case 12 and the histology coding accuracy was less than 40%. From emails we received, it is clear that registrars are unaware that the "somatic type malignancy" can vary but code 9084 applies when the diagnosis is teratoma WITH any non-germ cell tumor component. It may be helpful to add a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) to the Solid Tumor Manual.

The patient had a 2023 endometrial polypectomy and curettage with final diagnosis of “at least serous intraepithelial neoplasia arising in association with an endometrial polyp.” Diagnosis comment states, “There are multiple tissue fragments with highly atypical glandular lining consistent with a high-grade serous neoplasm. There are focal areas which are suspicious, but not conclusive, for stromal invasion.” Subsequent hysterectomy and BSO showed no residual carcinoma.

According to previous SINQ 20210043, serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (STIN) is reportable when stated to be high grade. Does the same logic apply to a similar neoplasm in the endometrium and/or endometrial polyp?

Patient was diagnosed March 2024 with high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder during excision for clinical history of acute cholecystitis and obstruction.

Per the STR, Table 10 for Gallbladder and Extrahepatic Bile Duct Histologies shows Biliary intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade as code 8148/2. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia of the biliary tract is also code 8148/2.

Recent SINQ 20240021 (GI specific) indicates high grade dysplasia is reportable as high grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia (8148/2) for stomach, small intestine, and esophagus. Does the same hold true for gallbladder? If so, then it appears there is a conflict between STR and Appendix E2.

However, using the logic of SINQ 20240021 for this site would appear to contradict Appendix E2 which indicates high grade dysplasia in sites other than stomach, intestine, and esophageal sites is not reportable.

If we can code high grade dysplasia of GI sites to 8148/2, should we accession high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder and other biliary sites in a similar manner? If so, then Appendix E needs to be modified.