SEER Inquiry System - Search

The pathologist completed a CAP protocol using soft tissue. Pathology revealed a 2.5 cm tumor with invasion of skeletal muscle with deep margins positive for tumor.

A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.

Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).

And

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.

We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.

LIRADS (v2014) categories

M - Possible non-HCC malignancy

1 - Definitely Benign

2 - Probably Benign

3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC

4 - Probably HCC

5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)

A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date?

Under the hematopoietic data base, treatment for polycythemia vera shows chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and phlebotomy. Essential thrombocytopenia shows blood thinners, anti-clotting medications, aspirin, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and other therapy (Anagrelide) (for essential thrombocythemia only) and watchful waiting (for asymptomatic patients). Myelodysplastic syndrome shows bone marrow transplant, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and stem cell transplant.

SEER*RX under warfarin says: Per the 2012 Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual (page 10), blood thinners and/or anti-clotting agents are to be coded as treatment (Other Therapy) for the following histologies: 9740/4 Mast cell sarcoma 9741/3 Systemic mastocytosis 9742/3 Mast cell leukemia 9875/3 Chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL 1 positive 9950/3 Polycythemia vera 9961/3 Primary myelofibrosis 9962/3 Essential thrombocythemia 9963/3 Chronic neutrophilic leukemia 9975/3 Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.

Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?

The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the "excisional biopsy" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed.

In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?

The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit?

Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?