SEER Inquiry System - Search

10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion).

12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas).

4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis.

Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior?

SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6?

Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor."

10/25/2023:  Patient presents to dermatology office with a questionable drug eruption having 3 weeks of papular eruptions of Trunk (Left Chest). Punch biopsies were taken that came back as immature hemopoietic infiltrate with monocytic differentiation. Comment: Myelodysplastic syndrome and leukemia cutis are possibilities. Addendum Report: Additional stains were prepared. ERG is strongly positive. CD1a and S100 do not stain the atypical cells.The controls stain appropriately. CD123 perform with appropriate control is also negative. The pattern is that of so-called "leukemia cutis" which could be seen in the clinical setting of myelodysplasia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) or precursor to acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AMML). Recommend work up. The only available information at present is a diagnosis of leukemia cutis, and that there was no prior history of a hematological malignancy in this patient.

Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment.

If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected?

Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added?

Imaging identified a mass involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland and excision of the mass proved “histiocytosis.” The case was extensively reviewed, and the physician notes this patient has a pituitary tumor that is a “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis,” or a “non-LCH histiocytic neoplasm.”

There is no histology for histiocytosis (NOS) or non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, this does appear to be a non-malignant histiocytic neoplasm. If this were a Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm in the CNS it would be reportable. Should this non-Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm also be accessioned as a reportable CNS neoplasm? If so, how is the histology coded?

The patient had a 2023 endometrial polypectomy and curettage with final diagnosis of “at least serous intraepithelial neoplasia arising in association with an endometrial polyp.” Diagnosis comment states, “There are multiple tissue fragments with highly atypical glandular lining consistent with a high-grade serous neoplasm. There are focal areas which are suspicious, but not conclusive, for stromal invasion.” Subsequent hysterectomy and BSO showed no residual carcinoma.

According to previous SINQ 20210043, serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (STIN) is reportable when stated to be high grade. Does the same logic apply to a similar neoplasm in the endometrium and/or endometrial polyp?

Appendix E1 in both the 2023 and 2024 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) lists these malignant spindle cell neoplasms, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma, as reportable when other tumors have been ruled out with immunohistochemistry. This contradicts both SINQ 20190102 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) general instructions indicating ambiguous terminology (e.g., “consistent with”) cannot be used to code the more specific histology when there is a NOS (malignant spindle cell neoplasm, 8004/3) and a more specific (malignant atypical fibroxanthoma, 8830/3) histology.

These tumors are typically diagnosed and treated in dermatology offices, so further chart review or confirmation by a physician is not possible for central registries.

As non-melanoma skin primaries are included in the Other Sites schema, and this schema was updated for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, which instruction applies to 2023+ diagnoses? Should these continue to be collected per Appendix E1 despite the conflict with the STR Manual and SINQ? If these are reportable, should the SINQ and STR Manual be updated to reflect this? Or should these be non-reportable per the STR Manual and SINQ?

Patient underwent excision of an oropharyngeal soft tissue mass revealing plasma cell neoplasm with extensive amyloid deposition. During work-up, bone marrow biopsy also revealed involvement by plasma cell neoplasm, with 5-10% of marrow cellularity. No amyloid seen in bone marrow. Patient was referred for radiation of the oropharyngeal mass. Per medical oncology qualifying best for the diagnosis of solitary extramedullary plasmacytoma with minimal marrow involvement. Decision made for observation by medical oncology in view of “minimal” bone marrow involvement. Question: Is rule M11 correct, and I abstract this case as a plasma cell myeloma, 9732/3, C421?