SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

The MP/H Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Colon indicate that type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation are all equivalent in terms of coding histology. However, this is not indicated in the General Instructions (e.g., Histologic Type ICD-O-3 or General Instructions Histology Coding Rules). It also is not included as a Note under the Rules where one would expect to use these terms, for example, Rule H7. Is this an oversight or error in the Manual?

In this case, Rule H7 seems to be the first (and most appropriate) rule that applies to this mixed histology tumor. However, the specific histology terms that an invasive tumor may be identified as, are only listed under Rule H13. Can these same terms be used when applying rules for which they are not specifically noted? It would seem logical to use the equivalent histology terms to code a mixed histology tumor identified as a subtype or with features, etc., despite the fact that the specific terms are not listed under Rule H7.

Procedure stated = Bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies, left axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy. On the pathology report it indicates two additional lymph nodes were removed that were not SLN. The axillary aspect measures 2 x 2 x 1 cm. Two lymph nodes are identified ranging from 0.5 up to 1 cm. The lymph nodes are bisected and entirely submitted. Final Diagnosis Left breast, mastectomy including nipple: no residual carcinoma; FINAL DIAGNOSIS for LN = Lymph nodes, left axillary sentinel #1; excision: Two lymph nodes examined - negative for tumor (0/2); Two lymph nodes - negative for tumor (0/2)

Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize.

LARYNGOSCOPY - ENDOLARYNGEAL EXAM WAS GROSSLY UNREMARKABLE EXCEPT THAT SHE APPEARS TO HAVE A T1A SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA OF THE RIGHT TRUE VOCAL FOLD. IT EXTENDS FROM ALMOST THE ANTERIOR COMMISSURE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VOCAL PROCESS AND IS EXOPHYTIC IN NATURE. IT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE VENTRICLE OR ONTO THE FALSE VOCAL FOLD. NO SUBGLOTTIC EXTENSION IS SEEN. A. RIGHT POSTERIOR FALSE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY:  SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA IN SITU. B. RIGHT POSTERIOR TRUE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY:  SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. C. RIGHT MID TRUE VOCAL CORD, BIOPSY:  SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. D. RIGHT ANTERIOR TRUE VOCAL FOLD, BIOPSY:  INVASIVE AND IN SITU SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, MODERATELY DIFFERENTIATED.

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

Procedure: Nephrectomy

Laterality: Left

Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)

Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated

Pattern of growth: Solid

Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm

Local invasion: Present

Renal vein invasion: None

Surgical margins: Negative

Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable

Adrenal gland: Not submitted

Lymph nodes: Not present

Pathologic stage: T1b

There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant.