SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pathology--Final description: Uterus, cervix, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries, total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: Endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, well differentiated, FIGO 1/3. Myometrial invasion: focal myometrial invasion (30% of myometrium) Tumor size: 2 x2 cm Tumor site: Fundus, exophytic/polypoid lesion Gross description: The 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in diameter triangular endometrium is tan-red and smooth with a 2.0 x 2.0 cm tan-pink, exophytic fundic mass which extends on to both anterior and posterior aspects, 4.1 cm from the os.

We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.

Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.

Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor."

8/1/2016 Left Abdomen biopsy: Early melanoma in situ (C445-2, 8720/2).

9/2/2016 Upper back: Superficially invasive malignant melanoma (C445-9, 8720/3).

Does rule M4 apply and multiple primaries should be reported or does rule M8 apply and a single primary should be reported?

The note in the Urinary Terms and Definition states, Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. While it is true that both Ta and Tis are technically noninvasive, the AJCC defines Ta specifically for, A pathologist's use of Ta does indicate the noninvasive carcinoma did arise from a papillary tumor. However, not all pathologists use terminology that, following the Urinary Solid Tumor Histology Coding Rules, will result in a histology coded to 8130, despite an AJCC-defined Ta (noninvasive papillary carcinoma) tumor having been diagnosed because the tumor projected from the wall on a stalk.

In our region a number of pathologists provide the following types of diagnosis.

Histologic type: Noninvasive.

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): High-grade.

Tumor configuration: Papillary.

The pathologist and/or physician may then stage this as Ta. How is the histology coded for these cases if the H Rules do not allow one to code the papillary and noninvasive Ta disease as not equivalent to noninvasive papillary carcinoma?

Flat (in situ) urothelial carcinoma has an increased risk of invasive disease compared to the noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. Will there be inconsistencies or a resulting impact to analysis of truly flat/in situ urothelial carcinoma vs. papillary urothelial carcinomas if the papillary tumors are not being coded as such?

Patient diagnosed with multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. My research shows: Multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum is a recently reported benign, mixed glial neuronal lesion that is included in the 2016 updated World Health Organization classification of brain neoplasms as a unique cytoarchitectural pattern of gangliocytoma. There is no code in ICD-O-3 for it, so do I report it and use 9492/0 or not ?

02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern

04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern

Synoptic report:

Procedure: Lobectomy

Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor

Tumor Site: Upper lobe

Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant

Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm)

Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe

Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0

Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12

Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal

Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition)

Primary Tumor (pT): pT3

Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0

The Histology Coding Instructions give priority to the Final Diagnosis over the CAP protocol. However, when pathology reports are formatted using the CAP protocol, the presence of in situ carcinoma is generally only mentioned in the CAP protocol. Can the presence of in situ tumor mentioned only in the CAP protocol be used to apply rule H7 (Single Tumor: Invasive and In Situ Components Module)? Or are the rules in the Single Tumor: Invasive Only module used?

Example: Final diagnosis is invasive ductal carcinoma. CAP protocol mentions,

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?