SEER Inquiry System - Search

The case in question represents an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation that arises in the absence of androgen-deprivation therapy. A 2023 journal article states, “We show that amphicrine prostate cancer is a unique entity and differs in clinical and molecular features from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the prostate. Our study highlights the need to recognize AMPC as a unique molecularly defined subgroup of prostate cancer.”

Should we be coding this with histology 8140 (Adenocarcinoma, NOS) because we have no specific code for an amphicrine carcinoma? Should we code this as 8045 (Mixed small cell carcinoma) because this is possibly the only way to capture both the adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine components in a patient without previous treatment?

Our concern about using histology code 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation) is that, while a valid histology code, this might confound the data if researchers are trying to separate the truly treatment-related tumors from other histologies captured under 8574.

The CAP formatted pathology report histology field states, "Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS 98310/3)" and the tumor size comment field states, "Carcinoma involves a 1.5 cm endometrial polyp." Does rule H11 apply? Is the histology coded to clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because this is one histologic type identified in the CAP formatted histology field? Or should rule H12 apply and the histology coded as clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp [8210/3]? Or should we code the higher histology per rule H17 apply because clear cell adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in a polyp are two specific histologies?

For colon primaries, whether or not the tumor arose in a polyp is quite important. Is this also the case for primaries listed in the Other Sites category?

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?

The bone marrow was involved by lambda-restricted atypical B-cell and plasma cell populations with MYD88 mutation. Together these populations represent 10-15% of the bone marrow cellularity. While the bone marrow biopsy pathology alone did not provide a reportable diagnosis, the oncologist clinically diagnosed this as smoldering WM in the medical record.

Is a diagnosis of smoldering WM similar to a diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma (MM), a reportable Heme neoplasm, since smoldering neoplasms may be considered to meet the neoplasm’s threshold in the bone marrow but is otherwise asymptomatic?

The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza.

No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or is this the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database?

The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa.

The article I read (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28984674) makes the distinction between mesophrenic adenocarcinoma and mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma. The authors propose the term mesonephric-like Mullerian adenocarcinoma. So would this be coded as Mullerian adenocarcinoma?

The AJCC 8th edition confirms that the identification of psammomatous calcifications within a cervical lymph node is metastatic disease.

Example: Patient had a thyroid lobectomy and level VI neck node excision in August 2022. The final diagnosis is multifocal papillary carcinoma of the thyroid, as well as rare psammomatous calcifications only in the resected node. The pathologist notes that “psammoma bodies only” in lymph nodes is not well defined, and while indolent, they do indicate capacity for lymphatic spread and are pN1a.

Should thyroid primaries with cervical node psammomatous calcifications get captured in EOD Regional Nodes category as it is in the AJCC pN staging?

The accuracy rate for SEER Workshop Case 04 (a duodenal invasive adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp) was very low because Rule H13 was either being ignored or users were stopping at Rule H12 to code adenocarcinoma.

If the presence of an NOS histology in a polyp is still clinically relevant for the Other Sites module, this information will be missed due to the order of the H Rules, or the lack of clarification in Rule H12.

If a change is made to Rule H12 (Single Tumor: Invasive Only module), then changes must also be made to the Single Tumor: In Situ Only module and the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module because both these modules include the same polyp coding H Rule.

The abbreviation "ca" results in inconsistency when coding histology by a group of coders. Many abbreviation guides list both cancer (8000/3) and carcinoma (8010/3) as definitions for "ca." Page 261 of the SEER Self Instructional Manual, Book 5 lists carcinoma as the definition for "ca."

Example: What histology is used for a case with a clinical diagnosis of "recently diagnosed uterine ca" with metastasis to the pelvic lymph nodes?