SEER Inquiry System - Search

2016 Total thyroidectomy, Multifocal

-Dominant Tumor:  Right Lobe, Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)

-Tumors two through five:  Three tumors Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3), and one tumor Papillary thyroid carcinoma, follicular variant (8340/3)

-An additional tumor: Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (8343/2)

Final Pathologic Diagnosis:

Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment)

Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM.

Margins: Negative.

Comment

Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised.

12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon:

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion.

PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management.

2021 Bone marrow biopsy showed erythroid hyperplasia, increased histiocytes with hemophagocytosis and Factor XIIIa positive histocytic cells. Moderate cytoplasmic staining for ALK 1, consistent with bone marrow involvement of ALK-positive histiocytosis. A subsequent kidney lesion biopsy was also found to have ALK-positive histiocytosis. The patient was then treated with clofarabine.

Patient is 3 years old.

07/2020-Chart indicates patient presented in June with fevers and refusing to walk with pancytopenia, bone marrow biopsy showed no leukemia buthistiocytes. Impression: ALK positive histiocytosis involving BM and kidney.

10/2020 Bone marrow final diagnosis states right and left bone marrow aspirates and biopsies: No morphologic or immunohistochemical evidence of involvement by the patient's previously diagnosed ALK+ histiocytosis (see Comments) - Multiple histiocytic collections with prominent hemosiderin; favor reactive - background normocellular bone marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis.

The patient's prior bone marrow samples are reviewed (9/2020 and 7/2020). Similar to the September bone marrow sample, the current marrow shows numerous histiocyte collections with abundant associated hemosiderin deposition. These histiocytes have a stellate/dendritic appearance and lack the atypical features noted in the patient's marrow at diagnosis, favoring a reactive process. This impression is further supported by the lack of immunoreactivity for either Factor XIIIa or ALK1 among these cells. There is no convincing morphologic or immunohistochemical evidence of marrow involvement by the patient's previously diagnosed ALK+ histiocytosis within the sampled material. Of note, the marrow otherwise appears normocellular for the patient's age, indicative of ongoing marrow recovery post therapy.

It is not clear whether this would be equivalent to Langerhans cell histiocytosis, disseminated (9751/3) as there is not a statement of Langerhans cell or whether this is just histiocytosis, NOS and not reportable.

Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant.

We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case.

Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC).

Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction.

If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11.

Since the synoptic report and final diagnosis are equal in priority, and the Solid Tumor Rules tell us to code the more specific histology, would this be coded to signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, 8490/3, even though the pathologist used features in the final diagnosis? There is no histology adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell features on the CAP Protocol, so the pathologist may check off the next closest histology " signet ring cell carcinoma " which would not be truly representative of the actual histology. Final Diagnosis: Proximal colon, segmental resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, with signet ring cell features. Synoptic Report A: Colon and Rectum - Resection Specimen Procedure: Right hemicolectomy, Tumor Site: Right (ascending) colon, Histologic Type: Signet-ring cell carcinoma, Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated.

Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule?