SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per SINQ 20021106, for tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, a clinical diagnosis of metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease was to be coded to histology 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. "Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma."

Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored.

Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]?

What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary?

This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic.

If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary?

A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma?

Patient had a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 and was treated with Hydroxyurea. In 2010, the patient was admitted with severe bone pain and a diagnosis described as, "The overall features of the biopsy are consistent with a fibrotic stage of a chronic myeloproliferative disorder. The presence of up to 15% CD34+ immature cells seen in the biopsy suggests that the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia." In addition, cytogenetic studies and molecular testing for JAK2 were ordered. These findings confirmed a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 mutation was not detected. The patient died within 2 weeks. Is this a new primary?

Was this patient diagnosed with AML (which requires 20% or more blasts and this is only 15%)? If this is a new primary, is the histology 9861/3 [AML, NOS] or 9895/3 [AML with myelodysplasia-related changes]? Was the second diagnosis of AML definitively diagnosed?

The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?

Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.

Patient was diagnosed many years ago with adenocarcinoma of the prostate and treated with hormonal and radiation therapy. The patient recently underwent a TURP and is found to have adenosquamous carcinoma of the prostate. The pathology report comment states squamous carcinoma of the prostate is rare and is often associated with a history of hormonal or radiation therapy. There is no information indicating a history of a squamous carcinoma in the urinary system that could have involved the prostatic urethra.

Would the MP/H rules make this a second primary with the histology of 8560/3 [adenosquamous carcinoma]?

Is the statement "with __ features" indicative of a specific type of renal cell carcinoma (that is not represented by a specific histology code) or a second histologic type? Per ICD-O, "malignant rhabdoid tumor" is coded 8963/3. "Rhabdoid" is not listed in Table 1 in the MP/H rules as a specific type of renal cell carcinoma.