SEER Inquiry System - Search

For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting?

A question was posted to CAnswer forum 9/26/18 and answered stating that 8046 is not on the AJCC list of histologies for the lung chapter in the 8th edition. If the final diagnosis on the pathology report is just NSCLC, NOS with no subtype/variant, what histology/solid tumor rule would I use? In this situation, I am not able to query the pathologist. Would I code the histology to 8010 as per AJCC post?

1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of

Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?

2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of

Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?

3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.

Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.

Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?

From a number of definitions reviewed, it seems unclear if it's part of the appendix or the cecum of the colon. For example: The cecum is usually located in the right iliac fossa. In the pole of the cecum, there is often the appearance of fusion of the three teniae coli around the appendix, giving rise to the tri-radiate fold (Mercedes Benz sign), but the anatomy can be variable. The most reliable landmarks of the cecum are the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve. The appendiceal orifice is usually an unimpressive slit, often crescentic in shape. The ileocecal valve is made up of the superior and inferior lips (usually not seen en face) and is the gateway leading into the terminal ileum. It is located on the prominent ileocecal fold encircling the cecum, between 3 and 5 cm distal to the cecal pole. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113701730)

Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case.

Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation.

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

10/27/2017 partial nephrectomy final path diagnosis: renal oncocytic neoplasm, favor hybrid oncocytic tumor. Comment:

There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries?

Mixed odontogenic tumor consistent with dentinoameloblastoma, 9.5 cm, See Note: Tumor involves maxillary bone including hard palate, alveolar ridges, nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses bilaterally and buccal soft tissue. Lymphovascular invasion not identified. Perineural invasion not identified. Margins: Tumor involves right posterior bone (alveolar) margin. All other margins negative. Note: This is a rare hybrid tumor showing features of ameloblastoma producing pre-dentin/osteodentin matrix. Submucosal tumor is seen in the nasal cavities and palate. A congo red stain shows that the acellular dentin-like matrix fluoresces similar to collagen after polarization. Immunohistochemistry shows that the tumor cells are diffusely and strongly positive for p63, focally positive for CK19, and negative for CK5/6, SOX10, S100 and calretinin.