SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize.

Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

Is the instruction under #4.b. on page 114 of the 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual incorrect? It says to code Rituxan as chemotherapy.  

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)?

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)?

There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text.

Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090.  On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through.

SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions?

It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual.

Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000.

Examples

8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG    9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)

5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg    6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg