SEER Inquiry System - Search

According to our pathologist and oncologist, the terms "malignant" and "benign" do not apply to GIST. Rather, the term "high risk for malignant behavior" is used. This is based on tumor size: greater than 5 cm and mitotic activity: greater than 5 mitoses/50 hpf.

Patient was found to have two tumors in the esophagus. The large tumor was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma with areas of neuroendocrine differentiation (small cell carcinoma). The smaller tumor was diagnosed as small cell carcinoma. If we accept the "areas of" to be part of the diagnosis, rule H16 indicates that histology for the large tumor would be coded 8045 (combined small cell and adenocarcinoma). If we ignore the "areas of," then histology for the large tumor would be coded to 8140 (adenocarcinoma). Either way, when counting primaries, rule M17 would be applied and the two tumors would be classified as separate primaries. However, it seems that the two tumors are probably the same disease process since they both show small cell carcinoma.

In 2/08 patient underwent resection of tumor of right frontal lobe. Path diagnosis showed a low grade glioma, favor low grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II). In 02/09 biopsy of a left thalamic mass showed glioblastoma mutiforme. Per rule M6 glioblastoma multiforme following a glial tumor is a single primary. Per path diagnosis, the first tumor represented a low grade glioma. However, oligodendroglioma is not on the glial branch of chart 1 in the MP/H rules.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

Path reports often diagnose "melanoma with spitzoid features." There is no code for this in ICD-O-3. Would it be melanoma NOS with a specific type for MP/H rule H9 (with features of...), or would we stop at H3? Could the matrix principle apply, changing 8770/0 (one of the synonyms is Spitz nevus) to 8770/3 (although no Spitz synonyms are specifically listed under this code)? What if the path report says "melanoma arising in a Spitz nevus"?

Patient was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma of the right breast in April 2001. Following modified radical mastectomy in May 2001, the patient was disease free. In December 2008 the patient was diagnosed with a right chest wall mass, invasive poorly differentiated mammary carcinoma with lobular origin. If this is a new primary in 2008, would we code the primary site to breast or chest wall? Please see I&R answers 25924, 22163 and 26155 with similar case scenarios that give two different answers. One response indicates coding this type of scenario as new primary to chest wall and the other two responses indicate this should not be a new primary because the chest wall is a metastatic site. The pathology report does not state that this is metastatic and it is unknown if there is breast tissue left behind at the chest wall.

1. Path report for breast cancer has final diagnosis as 'DCIS' but the CAP protocol in the body of the report says 'microinvasion seen, T1mic.'

2. Path report says 'DCIS' in the final diagnosis and microinvasion is identified in the microscopic portion of the report, but it is not in CAP protocol format and not stated in the final diagnosis.