SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients.

Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.

In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change?

Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.

Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used?

Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Per a NAACCR Webinar from February 2011 (Testis), "All adult (post-puberty) pure mature teratoma tumors are malignant and should be coded 9080/3.' Does this apply to ovarian cases? The medical record entries all seem to indicate this a benign process.

Should this NAACCR Webinar info be applied specifically to testicular cases? Would this be a reportable case if the primary site were testis?

The patient also has a history of medullary carcinoma of the thyroid. SINQ 20100052 indicates a thyroid primary may present in an ovarian teratoma. Would this be reportable, or must there be mention of the histology other than, or in addition to, the mature teratoma?

Penile mass excision shows final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type. Subsequent partial penectomy has a final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type and the summary cancer data lists

Both the final diagnosis and summary cancer data indicate a histology code of 8051/3 (squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type / verrucous carcinoma). However, this site and histology combination triggers edit IFN4911. Edit documentation indicates that for sites C600-C609 (all penile sites) use histology code 8051 and do not use 8054.

Review of the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table does not indicate these terms are synonymous.

PE: Prostate firm on DRE

IMP: Rule out prostate cancer

PE: No palpable lymph nodes.

PET scan: No spleen or lymph node uptake; no uptake anywhere in the body.

Peripheral blood and flow cytometry/FISH analysis diagnosis: Marginal zone lymphoma.

No bone marrow or biopsy of any lymph nodes done. Doctor states "marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1."

Patient with overlapping lesion of tongue and floor of mouth. Initial biopsy of floor of mouth reveals microinvasive squamous cell cancer. Definitive resection reveals in situ squamous cell cancer. Pathology report states unifocal tumor. The tumor site on pathology report is documented as involving the tongue and floor of mouth.

Should the primary site be coded to floor of mouth because it is the site of invasive disease? Or is primary site C148 [overlapping sites of lip, oral cavity and pharynx] because invasion should not be used to determine primary site?