SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

At a recent meeting, one registry stated that they apply the following guidelines.

1) If the tumor is described as a hilar mass and there is no mention of LN involvement, Primary Site is coded to hilum (C340)

2) If there is LN involvement along with the mention of a hilar mass, then Primary Site is coded to C349

Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: "Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades." They also state "In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014.

How many primaries should be reported when a 12/19/14 RUL lung wedge resection shows: 2.0 cm invasive adenocarcinoma (8140/3) and an additional RUL wedge resection during the same procedure shows: multifocal adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) size: 1 mm – 2 mm; followed by a 2/12/15 left upper lobectomy also showing Adenocarcinoma, invasive at several foci, with a prominent bronchioloalveolar (in situ) component….tumor focality: multifocal (10 cm mass, 6 cm mass and numerous smaller foci)?

Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSCG) is a rare type of low-grade sweat gland carcinoma. Some journal articles indicate that most patients with EMPSCG have coexisting mucinous carcinomas, suggesting that EMPSCG is a precursor to invasive mucinous carcinoma of the skin. Sweat gland carcinoma has its own histology code per the ICD-O-3 (8400/3); should an endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma also be coded as 8400/3? If so, would the correct histology for the skin case above be mucinous carcinoma (8480/3) per Rule H17? Conversely, if the terms "mucin-producing" are referring to mucin-producing carcinoma, and not referring to the sweat gland carcinoma, would the histology be coded 8481/3 (mucin-producing carcinoma)?

The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.

The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, "Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue." This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?

Procedure stated = Bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies, left axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy. On the pathology report it indicates two additional lymph nodes were removed that were not SLN. The axillary aspect measures 2 x 2 x 1 cm. Two lymph nodes are identified ranging from 0.5 up to 1 cm. The lymph nodes are bisected and entirely submitted. Final Diagnosis Left breast, mastectomy including nipple: no residual carcinoma; FINAL DIAGNOSIS for LN = Lymph nodes, left axillary sentinel #1; excision: Two lymph nodes examined - negative for tumor (0/2); Two lymph nodes - negative for tumor (0/2)