SEER Inquiry System - Search

The FNA showed high grade B-cell lymphoma, morphologically compatible with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Special studies state: Tumor cells are positive for Vimentin, CD45, and CD20, focally weakly positive for CD43; negative for Myeloperoxidase, CD99, AE1/AE3, CK7, CK20, S100, CD3, cyclin D1, CD34, CD5 and TTF1. The cellular findings and immunophenotype are compatible with large B-cell lymphoma.

The treating physician refers to this disease process and is treating the patient for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Should the histology be coded as B-cell lymphoma, NOS (9591/3) because both the FNA and the immunophenotyping use ambiguous terminology? Does the physician reference to the disease process as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Stage II-AE impact the histology used?

The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?

Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.

The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.

I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed?

The final diagnosis on the pathology report for a brain biopsy is "Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative." Per a progress note: right inguinal lymphadenopathy. CT scan is consistent with multiple lymph node groups enlarged. Right lower extremity cutaneous nodular lesion; cutaneous lesions likely cutaneous lymphoma.

Should the histology be coded 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative], and the primary site C447 [skin of leg]? Or is the physician using "cutaneous lymphoma" as a general term indicating infiltration and the primary site is really C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]?

The final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy was high grade myeloid stem cell neoplasm, 17% blasts by differential count.  The pathologist further states that this could be classified as “MDS with increased blasts (MDS-IB2) per the WHO 5th edition classification, or MDS/AML per the international consensus classification (ICC).”  FISH and cytogenetics revealed a loss of 7q, but no other AML-related genetic abnormalities. The physician confirms the patient has MDS/AML.

The final diagnosis from the left mastectomy was multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma (mpT1cN0) with associated intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in situ located between the invasive foci.

Larger 2:00 focus: moderately differentiated ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation (1.4 cm).

Smaller 3:00 focus: moderately to poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma (1.2 cm).

The histologies of the invasive foci should be coded 8523/3 and 8500/3 respectively. To determine the number of primaries, does rule M11 apply which indicates this should be a single primary even though ductal with mucinous differentiation is not in Tables 1 or 2? Or does rule M12 apply because there is a difference in the third digit of histology and thus means this should be reported as a multiple primary case?

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 final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.

Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?

The Extent of Disease (EOD) Manual states: Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension documented. If the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease, code the extension based on the post-neoadjuvant information.

The Extent of Disease (EOD) manual states that "Confined to thymus WITH mediastinal or pleural involvement" should be coded as regional by direct extension. I have EOD primary tumor coded as 200 and based on SEER*RSA, this is localized.