SEER Inquiry System - Search

CT guided core biopsy of pelvic mass is positive for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bone marrow biopsy is negative. Mediastinoscopy with mediastinal and pretracheal nodes biopsy is positive for follicular lymphoma grade 1 of 2. The patient has a PET demonstrating positive extensive metastatic disease with nodes in neck, chest, abdomen/pelvis and bone involvement. Should the histology be coded 9591/3 [NHL, NOS] or 9695/3 [FL, grade 1]? Which rule applies?

The table of contents for the Hematopoietic Manual indicates Module 8 for these histologies, however, Module 8 rules do not seem to apply. Continuing on to Module 9, the first rule that applies is PH30. PH30 states use the Heme DB to determine primary site/histology. The Heme DB indicates these are separate primaries, but both histologies are B-cell lymphomas.

CT findings state: Very lg sft tiss mass encasing pancreatic head & portion of body, splenic & portal veins, celiac axis, sup mesenteric artery & bilateral renal veins. Two components to this mass: 1) retroperitoneal mass encasing great vessels and 2) peritoneal component 10.8cm size, displaces bowel & other structures & encases vessels.

If the physician stated "this is bulky disease" would that change the EOD?

CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]?

CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct?

CT a/p read by radiologist shows: "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney." Follow-up MRI a month later reads "right kidney cystic lesion with enhancing mural nodule concerning for cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." Urologist consult used the same wording of "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion" and "concerning for renal cell carcinoma." Treatment discussed but due to patient health status recommended repeat imaging. Repeat CT few months later reads: "cystic right renal lesion with enhancing nodule similar to most recent prior and suspicious for cystic RCC."

Though "suspicious for cystic RCC" per latest imaging is reportable, Bosniak 4 is "clearly malignancy, ~100% malignant" by definition, so is the case actually reportable with the first CT a/p date as date of diagnosis?

CT A/P massively enlarged uterus with no distention between the vagina, cervix or proximal to mid uterus identified. Highly concerning for malignancy though distinct etiology not clear. Ovarian not favored though not excluded given lack of clearly defined fat planes between uterus and either ovary. Extensive bilateral iliac chain and periaortic/pericaval lymphadenopathy.

Trying to work through Module 7 in the Hem DB. According to the ovary site, regional lymph nodes include the iliac and the para-aortic lymph nodes. This makes me think I should use Rule PH35 (organ and regional nodes). However, using Appendix C in the Hem DB, the iliac lymph nodes are part of the pelvic C775 while the para-aortic (periaortic) are intra-abdominal C772. This makes me wonder if I should go with rule PH36 present in organ and nodes that are not regional.

Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here?

Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade

Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm

Bone marrow, right iliac crest (aspirate smear, touch preparation, clot section and core biopsy): Hypercellular marrow (40-50%) with plasma cell neoplasm (see Comment): " No evidence of metastatic carcinoma. " Adequate iron storage.

Comment: CBC data shows normocytic anemia. Flow cytometric analysis of bone marrow detects a kappa restricted plasma cell population that expresses CD138 and CD38. CD56 is positive. CD19 and CD20 are negative. T lymphocytes are immunophenotypically unremarkable. Polyclonal B lymphocytes are detected. Blast gate is not significantly increased. Immunohistochemical stains are performed on the biopsy core and clot section for greater sensitivity and further architectural assessment with adequate controls. CD138 positive plasma cells comprise > 70% of the total cellularity. AE1/AE3 is negative. Taken together, the morphologic and immunophenotypic findings are consistent with a diagnosis of plasma cell neoplasm. Trilineage hematopoietic activity as are seen.

Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype.

Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology?

Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree?