SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease?

The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza.

No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or is this the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database?

For example, chemotherapy and immunotherapy administered first, followed by surgery, then immunotherapy and hormone therapy after surgery. Or is code 4 used for two administrations of chemotherapy before surgery and two more courses after surgery?

The patient was diagnosed with an EBV-positive plasmablastic lymphoma involving the left testis on radical orchiectomy in April 2019.

In September 2019, a plasmacytoma was found on a right mandibular mass biopsy. Imaging at that time revealed diffuse disease involving the thoracic spine and sinus involvement. The patient then underwent a resection of the T8 spinal/epidural tumor that also proved plasmacytoma.

Subsequently, the right mandibular mass and testis slides were reviewed (at an outside facility) and both were stated to be, The T8/epidural tumor pathology was not reviewed, so it is unclear if this is also assumed to be the same disease process as the right mandibular mass or still a separate, solitary plasmacytoma.

Additionally, some chart notes indicate the patient has plasmablastic lymphoma with a secondary diagnosis of plasmacytoma, while other chart notes state this is stage IV plasmablastic lymphoma involving all documented sites. Although the plasmablastic lymphoma and at least the plasmacytoma of T8 have different ICD-O-3 histology codes, the physicians do seem to be treating this as a single disease process.

Patient had a vulvar biopsy with final diagnosis of Extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm). No invasion identified. We are unable to contact the pathologist or physician for clarification.

Although this terminology is not listed in the ICD-O-3, web search results refer to this as a possible synonym for Paget disease with associated VIN III, which is reportable.

There are four invasive tumors in the right lung:

Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma in the right lower lobe (8012/3, C343);

Adenocarcinoma, acinar-predominant in the right lower lobe (8551/3, C343) that was 0.7 cm in size and limited to the lung;

Mucinous adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe (8253/3, C341) that was 0.9 cm and limited to the lung;

Adenocarcinoma, NOS also in the right upper lobe (8140/3, C341) that was 1 cm and limited to the lung.

The Lung M Rules confirm the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma is a separate primary from the three adenocarcinoma tumors (Rule M8). The acinar adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma tumors are separate primaries (Rule M6). The adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor is the same primary as both the acinar and mucinous are adenocarcinomas (Rule M7).

How is Primary Site coded for both the acinar and mucinous adenocarcinomas if they represent multiple tumors reported as a single primary (when compared to the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor)?

Should the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor also be included when coding EOD Primary Tumor for both the right lower lobe acinar adenocarcinoma and right upper lobe mucinous adenocarcinoma primaries? Further follow-up with the physician is not possible.

Penile mass excision shows final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type. Subsequent partial penectomy has a final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type and the summary cancer data lists

Both the final diagnosis and summary cancer data indicate a histology code of 8051/3 (squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type / verrucous carcinoma). However, this site and histology combination triggers edit IFN4911. Edit documentation indicates that for sites C600-C609 (all penile sites) use histology code 8051 and do not use 8054.

Review of the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table does not indicate these terms are synonymous.

According to the literature, PMH is a low-grade malignant vascular neoplasm of different tissue planes including skin and soft tissue. However, the references also state: PMH is a cutaneous tumor that behaves in an indolent fashion. There is no indication that this was a malignant diagnosis.

12/3/18 Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Superficial squamous epithelium demonstrating hyperkeratosis and fragments of keratin debris, no tumor seen.

Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

NOTE: The submitted immunohistochemical slides were reviewed. Positive and negative controls reacted appropriately. The tumor cells demonstrate immunoreactivity to CK AE1/AE3 and CK7. The CD31 immunoreactivity described in the report cannot be confirmed as only the positive control is submitted for review. The tumor cells are negative for desmin, CD45, CD68, S-100, CD34, SMA, CD20, and HHV8. The proliferative index via Ki-67 is approximately 10%. The morphology (described below) and immunohistochemistry performed are compatible with a pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

12/4/18 Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Foot, left bone lesion, biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

Note: The patient's imaging findings were reviewed in conjunction with this case, revealing numerous lytic lesions of the tibia, fibula, talus, tarsal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones. Additionally, as per the medical record, also reviewed in conjunction with this case, there are lesions of the skin. Thus, an extensive immunohistochemical panel was performed in an attempt to support the morphologic findings in this case, which were morphologically similar to the patient's skin biopsy. The tumor cells demonstrate strong immunoreactivity to pancytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3) and vimentin with moderate immunoreactivity to Fli-1. The tumor cells demonstrate weak immunoreactivity to epithelial membrane antigen. INI-1 is retained. There is focal immunoreactivity to CD31 although this is limited to the edges of the tissue fragments. The tumor cells are negative for HHV-8, CD34, smooth muscle actin, CK8/18, desmin, CD99, and Bcl-2. The combination of morphologic (see below for microscopic description) and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma. Fresh tissue was submitted for karyotype analysis at the time of intraoperative consultation; however, it revealed only a normal appearing male karyotype. Thus, molecular confirmation was sought. The original slides and a paraffin block were submitted for FOSB rearrangement analysis, as pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is known to have recurrent rearrangements with FOSB. Additional immunohistochemistry performed at (FACILITY) demonstrating immunoreactivity for ERG, supporting a vascular origin for this neoplasm. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated that 13% of the cells examined show FOSB rearrangement. While this FISH probe is for investigational purposes, the above findings support the diagnosis of pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

Example: Pelvic ultrasound-19 mm thickened endometrium; bilateral ovaries unremarkable. Case was coded to 19 mm for clinical tumor size. I have always been taught NOT to use "endometrial stripe" or "thickening" measurements for clinical size. Can you confirm. Also, is this noted on any of the SEER resources such as SEER training or in the SEER tumor size guidelines? I wanted to point them out to a reference if it is available.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor as a related term for histology code 8317 (Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type). However, this related term is not discussed in the implementation guidelines as being a new term/reportable tumor. The Solid Tumor Rules do not indicate a hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is reportable; however, if a registrar only looked at the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, it may seem as though this histology should be collected.

The term hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor was not included in the Solid Tumor Rules as a subtype/variant of RCC, or as an equivalent term for chromophobe RCC. There is a SINQ (20180047) that states not to report renal hybrid oncocytic tumor, despite the fact these tumors exhibit mixed features of both oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. For cases diagnosed 2021 and later, should the clarification in the SINQ apply? Or should the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table be used which indicates this is a reportable diagnosis? If the standard setters decided not to implement use of hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor for 2021, can clarification be added to the Solid Tumor Rules or Implementation Guidelines?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.