SEER Inquiry System - Search

In 2021, the patient was diagnosed with a non-reportable appendiceal LAMN.  Resection showed a tumor diffusely involving the appendix and perforating the visceral peritoneum, as well as extensive intraperitoneal metastasis.  In 2023, a lung wedge resection revealed metastatic mucinous neoplasm involving lung parenchyma and pleura, consistent with metastasis of the known appendiceal primary.  It is understood that intraperitoneal spread of an appendiceal LAMN does not make it reportable because the peritoneal disease is also non-invasive.  Does extraperitoneal metastasis of an appendiceal LAMN diagnosed prior to 2022 make it invasive disease and therefore reportable? 

Patient has a history of human immunodeficiency virus and diffuse large B cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2012, and is status/post systemic therapy and in remission since completing first course treatment. In 2022, the patient has imaging suspicious for recurrence. A biopsy of a deep left cervical lymph node showed atypical lymphoid infiltrate with the comment: “This is a challenging case. The constellation of findings is most in keeping with early / focal and subtle involvement by a nodular lymphocyte predominant B-cell lymphoma. We find no evidence of involvement by a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” The managing physician later states, “Cervical lymph node biopsy (06/2022) was consistent with nodular lymphocyte predominant B cell lymphoma.”

The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.

Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?

In the examples below, are these a single or multiple primaries?

Example 1:

Tumor 1:  C509/left breast, 8520/2 (in situ lobular carcinoma), dx date-01/10/2019

Tumor 2:  C509/ left breast, 8500/3 (carcinoma NST), dx date-08/19/2021

Example 2:

Tumor 1:  C509, right breast, 8520/2, dx date 06/26/2014

Tumor 2:  C508, right breast, 8500/3, dx date-05/23/2019

There seems to be some conflicting info on this. In the 2020 Breast Rules there was a note add to the revision history. “M10 Same behavior requirement re-added.” Which is not in the rules now, nor was it noted to the revision changes in the last two change logs.

Inquiry 20200070 would seem to indicate that this is multiple primaries, but that contrasts with 20230010 which would seem to indicate a single primary, and an ASK A SEER Registrar question that we received a response to. I don’t see a scenario where rule M17, an invasive tumor DX more than 60 days after an in situ tumor would come into play.

If behavior no longer applies to rule M10, at what point did that change get made? Please advise.

Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538?

Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology.

Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed in January 2023 with final diagnosis of myxoid and epithelioid leiomyosarcoma.

Diagnosis comment states: The tumor is 15 cm per report. It grows in nests and poorly formed interanastomosing trabeculae and cords that are separated by abundant myxoid background. The cells have an epithelioid morphology with eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and very prominent nucleoli. The mitotic activity is overall low ranging from 1 to 3/10 HPFs.

Immunohistochemical stains performed at the outside hospital showed diffuse positivity for SMA, desmin, caldesmon, and PR. They are negative for CD10, claudin-4, calretinin, HBM45, MART1 (rare weakly positive cells), PANCK, and SOX10. This immunohistochemical profile supports a smooth muscle derivation of this neoplasm. As this tumor is extensively myxoid, diagnostic criteria differ from the spindle cell leiomyosarcoma.

Per Solid Tumor Rules Other Sites, Table 16: Uterine Corpus Histologies, Epithelioid Leiomyosarcoma (8891/3) and Myxoid Leiomyosarcoma (8896/3) are both subtypes of Sarcoma, NOS (8800/3).  Per Rule H21, use a combination code when there are multiple specific histologies AND the combination is listed in Table 2 OR there are coding instructions for the combination in the applicable histology Tables 3-21 OR you receive a combination code from Ask A SEER Registrar.  Since there is no combination listed in Table 2 and there is no instruction for the combination in Table 16, how should the histology be coded for this tumor?

Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory).

Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory?

Patient had a mandibular mucosal lesion resected in June of 2023, with a diagnosis of “atypical squamous proliferation” and case was forwarded to an expert in oral pathology for best classification. Subsequent slide review final diagnosis was “moderate to severe squamous dysplasia.” That slide review diagnosis goes on to state “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.”

Currently there is no ICD-O code for severe squamous dysplasia, however it is unclear if this terminology is equivalent to high grade squamous dysplasia (histology code 8077/2).