SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32.

Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation).

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.

Lip has not been added to any of the site-specific histology tables, nor has any other instruction been provided for coding tumors in this site.

Coding histology for lip primaries is difficult because registrars do not know where to look first. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate one should use the tables first, but then do not inform registrars what table to use for a lip primary (i.e., a specific table, any table, no table).

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

Per SEER 20140003, an omentectomy is not recorded under Surgery of Other Site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. Is this still correct? CoC appears to have different guidelines stating in a forum that an omentectomy is coded in data item Surgical Procedure to Other Site. I would like to confirm SEER guidelines. Is this one of those unique situations that SEER and STORE differ? Our state follows SEER guidelines and would like to communicate the appropriate rules to our facilities.

Example: Diagnosis is made on liver core biopsy path showing Metastatic carcinoma, poorly-differentiated, consistent with lung primary. Diagnosis Comment notes: Carcinoma cells are positive for CK7 and TTF-1, negative for CK20.

Subsequent immunohistochemistry report for PD-L1 testing states Liver: Metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with lung primary. Interpretation: no PD-L1 expression.

IHC/Biomarker testing is often performed to determine treatment type, but it seems like some of the biomarkers for treatment planning are also histology specific. The Solid Tumor Rules do not address the use of biomarkers reports in the histology coding instructions.

Left Eye Conjunctiva, biopsy (01/23/2018): Conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe. Is intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe the same as coding 8077/2?

Rule H13 states to code the histology to metaplastic carcinoma when there is metaplastic carcinoma (or a subtype/variant) and invasive carcinoma NST. This rule makes no mention of lobular carcinoma. However, in Table 3, Note 2 for metaplastic carcinoma (8575) states metaplastic carcinoma, NOS and subtypes are almost always mixed with invasive mammary carcinoma, NST and at times lobular carcinoma. These tumors should be coded to metaplastic regardless of percent invasive mammary carcinoma or lobular carcinoma present.

While Table 2 (the mixed histology code table) does include an entry for metaplastic carcinoma AND carcinoma NST OR lobular carcinoma, it is unclear why lobular carcinoma has not been added to Rule H13 as well.

If a single tumor has metaplastic plus lobular carcinoma, Rule H13 does not apply and one has to continue through the rules. Unfortunately, the next rule registrars would be tempted to use is Rule H18: Code the histology that comprises greater than 50% of tumor when two histologies are on different rows in Table 3. This Rule does not state it does NOT apply to metaplastic carcinoma (only mucinous). So, if for some reason the lobular was greater than 50%, the incorrect histology would be coded (unless the registrar happened to remember Note 2 in the metaplastic carcinoma entry in Table 3).

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