SEER Inquiry System - Search

The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

The 2018 Solid Tumor (ST) Rules General Rules state: For those sites/histologies which have recognized biomarkers, the biomarkers frequently identify the histologic type. Currently there are clinical trials being conducted to determine whether these biomarkers can be used to identify multiple primaries. Follow the Multiple Primary Rules; do not code multiple primaries based on biomarkers.

Additionally, Biomarkers is at the top of the priority order to identify histology in several sections (it appears to be excluded from only Colon, Melanoma and Other sections). In the sections that include this rule, there is not much additional information on using biomarkers. Can you please provide further explanation for prioritizing biomarkers in the histology coding rules? For example, will the ST manual be updated when we need to look for specific biomarkers in a diagnosis?

Example: Initial CT scan impression is large appendiceal mucocele with a moderate amount of right-sided abdominal ascites. Faint mural enhancement suggesting an underlying appendiceal neoplasm (mucinous adenoma or adenocarcinoma).

Appendectomy follows two days later with final diagnosis of high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, see comment. Histologic grade: Grade G2 of 4 (based on the CAP protocol) . . . Ascites fluid (ThinPrep(r) and cell block preparations): Mucin, fragments of debris, and macrophages. No diagnostic neoplastic cells are identified . . . Pathologic stage: pT4a, pNX, pM1a (AJCC 8th ed).

Diagnosis Comment states, We feel that there are areas of this tumor where the cytologic atypia is beyond what one would expect in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. While mitotic figures are not strikingly increased, there are focal nuclear changes that would support classification of this tumor as high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.

Approximately two weeks later the patient has an Oncology assessment stating new diagnosis of T4a, NX, M1a, Stage IVA high-grade mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix with mucinous ascites. Patient has had an appendectomy but no further surgery so far. However, anecdotally, the best reported case series has been with surgical debulking followed by HIPEC chemotherapy In that instance I have recommended surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Is this a reportable malignancy? If so, what is the best histology for the diagnosis?

Urinary: Transitional Cell Carcinoma and open prostatectomy: Path from Bladder: Papillary and solid transitional cell carcinoma of bladder - grade II and III Stage A.

Path from prostatectomy: The prostatic tissue samples shows areas of urothelia carcinoma in situ - related to the tumor present in the bladder.

Conclusion: Prostatectomy showing foci of transitional cell carcinoma in situ of prostatic urethra.

The patient was diagnosed with GE junction signet ring adenocarcinoma (8490/3) in 5/2012, treated with radiation. GE junction biopsy on 9/20/2012 showed residual signet ring carcinoma. Subsequent biopsies on 7/8/2013 showed GE junction biopsy of invasive adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell type along with “Esophagus, distal and GE junction biopsies” (site not further clarified in available documentation) with Goblet cell carcinoma. The histology code for the goblet cell carcinoma is needed to determine the number of primaries.

For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?

10/1/02 CT of Chest: 1) Huge (left) suprahilar mass. 2) Moderate volume loss, left lung. Appearance suspicious of LLL collapse. An infiltrate is seen in the aerated upper lobe as well as pleural effusion. 3) Streaky and nodular changes are noted at the right base that may represent possible lymphangetic spread of tumor.

10/23/02 Discharge Dx: Lung mass, probably carcinoma.

In SINQ 20100025 a patient was diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors over a year apart. Rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was left coded to the original primary site, C65.9 [renal pelvis]. In SINQ 20110119 a patient is diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors within a month of each other, again rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was coded to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS].

In both cases, rule M8 applies. However, the tumors were not diagnosed synchronously (e.g., one month apart in one case and greater than one year apart in the other). When the SINQ answer states, "same time" or "synchronous" does this mean during the same event? If not, what is the time range for "same time" or "synchronous"?

Please clarify when it is appropriate to code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS] for Rule M8 and when it is not.