SEER Inquiry System - Search

Some facilities in our reporting region submit pathology reports that document invasive melanoma cases with a subtype stated to be a "growth pattern." The MP/H rules state that we are not to use the term "pattern" to code the histology of invasive tumors. However, applying this rule means the more specific histology will not be recorded for any of these cases. Can the term "growth pattern" be a more specific histologic type for invasive melanomas when no other information is available?

Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3.

Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific?

SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.

Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).

PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.

Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma.

If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note?

Site: Bladder

CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.

Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.

OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior

Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.

SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”

This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?

SINQ 20200022 indicates that cases originally diagnosed as in situ do not have a new primary when a new invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed within 5 years. Should histology and/or behavior get updated for the in situ breast primary?

SINQ 20180050 and 20130041 appear to have conflicting answers regarding the reportability of MBL with CLL (immuno)phenotype.

While the question content of SINQ 20180050 does not reference the CLL phenotype, it is included in the Discussion as part of the oncologist's assessment. The answer does not address the clinical diagnosis of MBL with CLL-phenotype and simply states that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not reportable.

SINQ 20130041 does include the CLL phenotype information in the primary question and it is expanded on in the discussion as present in peripheral blood. Based on that information, the answer is that it should be reportable and coded as CLL (9823/3).

SINQ 20170043 is a similar question about an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with microinvasion, but the answer seems to be specifically referencing mucinous tumors only. It is unclear if that SINQ could be applied to this case. In addition, we were not sure how to interpret the nodal involvement. The physician assessment after surgery was low grade serous carcinoma, chemo not recommended and letrozole started.

SINQ 20160023 and the Solid Tumor Rules indicate NET G1 (or well differentiated NET) is coded as 8240 and NET G2 is coded as 8249.

Clarification regarding grade coding in the CAnswer Forum indicates well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor refers to the histologic type, and not the grade. Therefore, the term well differentiated is ignored for the purpose of grade coding.

Neither of these sources clarifies how to code histology for a tumor diagnosed as well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.