SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy.

Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity):

Procedure type: Lumpectomy.

Specimen laterality: Right.

Tumor size: 7mm.

Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma.

Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9).

Tumor focality: Single focus.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

Treatment effect: No known therapy.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present.

Architectural pattern: Cribriform.

Nuclear grade: Grade 1.

Necrosis: Not identified.

Calcifications: Not identified.

Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm.

Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed).

Distant metastasis: Not applicable.

Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).

The SEER Manual states, Generally, this rule is invoking the Matrix principle in the ICD-O-3.

We are aware this is not the same as a VIN III or an adenoma with microinvasion because those tumors have a valid histology code listed in the ICD-O-3. The terms or or do not have a valid ICD-O-3 code to apply the Matrix principle.

If severe dysplasia is felt to be consistent with a carcinoma in situ, then a severe dysplasia with microinvasion would be reportable as 8010/3. But in the U.S., we do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ).

Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.

Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)

There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.

Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?

I understand that we are to record the Clinical Tumor Size in Tumor Size Summary because of the neoadjuvant therapy, but the SEER manual does not address what to record in the Pathologic Tumor Size after neoadjuvant therapy. Would we record 999 or the size of the in-situ tumor in the Pathologic Tumor Size field? Will there ever be a new data item added or changes to this current data item? By recording the Patholigic Tumor Size this way, there currently will not be any way to compare tumor size clinically versus after neoadjuvant therapy and assessing the response.

Pathology Diagnosis: Left temporal lesion - Low grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm BRAF mutant. Pathologist Comment: The histopathological appearance of this lesion does not allow for a definitive diagnosis. However, the low-grade appearance, fibrillary nature, immunohistochemical profile, and the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation allow this to be categorized as a low-grade glial or possibly glioneuronal tumor. Despite the lack of exact classification this neoplasm can be expected to behave in a very indolent manner consistent with a WHO grade I classification.

Core biopsy of left breast at 2:00: Invasive ductal carcinoma, Nottingham score 6/9.

Core biopsy of left breast at 4:00: Invasive mucinous carcinoma (variant of ductal carcinoma), Nottingham score 5/9.

Post neo-adjuvant mastectomy: Main (largest tumor): Invasive ductal carcinoma, upper outer quadrant grade 2. Secondary tumor: mucinous carcinoma, grade 1 at 4:00.

Example: FoundationAct assay of circulating tumor DNA in blood sample results: Tumor type = non-small cell lung carcinoma, NOS, with 3 genomic alterations identified: NRAS Q61H, IDH2 R140Q and TP53 V172F. The tumor was identified on imaging and the imaging findings were not clearly what one would expect to see with a SCLC.

The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do.

There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology.

The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3).

Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost.

IMPRESSION/PLAN: Patient is a previously healthy middle aged woman with a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). We will proceed with a neoadjuvant course of radiation and concurrent chemotherapy (5-FU) to maximize local regional control and survival, and hopefully facilitate a sphincter-sparing resection in the future. The primary tumor and the pelvic nodes at risk will receive 4500 cGy delivered over 25 treatments. The primary tumor will subsequently receive an additional 1080 cGy delivered over 5 treatments, for a cumulative dose of 580 cGy.

PATHOLOGY: Adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). The patient is referred by (dr) for a neoadjuvant course of chemoradiotherapy.

HPI: Patient presented recently with rectal bleeding and a change in bowel habits. Colonoscopy revealed an ulcerated mass located 4.0 cm above the anal verge. A biopsy was positive for invasive well-differentiated adenocarcinoma that arose from a tubular adenoma. A staging work-up demonstrated no evidence of metastatic disease.