SEER Inquiry System - Search

1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of

Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?

2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of

Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?

3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.

Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.

Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?

A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case.

Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation.

Per SINQ 20160068, sphenoid wing meningiomas are reportable (unless stated to be intraosseous) because they arise from the meninges overlying or along the sphenoid wing/sphenoid bone. These are intracranial and not intraosseous meningiomas.

Therefore, wouldn't this logic also apply to cavernous sinus meningiomas? These are tumors that arise from the meninges of an intracranial space, not from bone or soft tissue. The cavernous sinus is a "true dural venous sinus" within the skull. While not specifically about meningiomas, SINQ 20071095 states a benign tumor in the cavernous sinus is coded to C490. This SINQ would still seem valid for a benign tumor like a blood vessel tumor, but not for a meningioma that doesn't arise from soft tissue or blood vessels.

Discussion: Example: Shave biopsy with superficial spreading melanoma, Breslow 0.25 mm, Clark level II. Excision with no residual melanoma and gross description of specimen size is 4.0 x 1.6 cm skin ellipse excised to a depth of 1.8 cm.

We have differing opinions in our registry.

Opinion 1: We can assume margins are greater than 1 cm based on the excision specimen size when there is no residual tumor on excision and all dimensions of the excision specimen are more than 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 40s range.

Opinion 2: We should assume the melanoma defect was in the middle of the excision specimen, so for a skin ellipse that is 4.0 x 1.6 cm, there would be a 2 cm and 0.8 cm margin (respectively) from the middle of the specimen, thus margins are not > 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 30s range.

Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation.

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.