SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

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.

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.

Per the site validation list: https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/sitetype.icdo3.20190618.pdf#search=site%20validation, ill-defined sites (ILL-DEFINED C760-C768) does not include 8070- Squamous cell carcinoma as a valid histology. Therefore when a Cervical Lymph Node and Unknown Primary Tumor of the Head and Neck is submitted with a C760 and 8070/3, it requires an override be set.

Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules instructions, Final Diagnosis and Staging Summary (synoptic report) have equal coding priority. However, it is unclear which takes priority, or if this should be a combination of components, when the histologies are two different specific histologic types per Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules Manual.

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.

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.

The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table.

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