SEER Inquiry System - Search

11/24/20 Adnexal mass, cyst fluid: Positive for malignant cells. Clusters of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells. Groups of inhibin-negative, CK7-positive epithelial cells consistent with serous borderline tumor cells. Peritoneal washing: Positive for malignant cells. Small groups of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells.

A. Left ovarian mass: Adult granulosa cell tumor (AGCT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1c3 pNX - Serous borderline tumor (SBT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1a pNX. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.

B. Right ovary: - Serous cystadenofibroma of ovary. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.

C. Left pelvic wall nodule: Fibro-calcified nodule, consistent with necrotic appendix epiploica.

D. Uterus (hysterectomy): Uterine leiomyomas. Endosalpingiosis of uterine serosa and paracervical tissue. Atrophic endometrium.

Note: The left ovarian mass is involved by a combined adult granulosa cell tumor and a serous borderline tumor. The AGCT mainly involves the thick-walled cystic area while the SBT the thin-walled cyst/s. The 2 neoplastic elements do, however, demonstrate areas of intimate and close intermingling. From the current literature, it appears that, based on FOXL2 mutation, the AGCT component of combined AGCT and ovarian epithelial tumors is either a true neoplastic processes or an AGCT- like proliferation morphologically indistinguishable from AGCT. To further evaluate the nature of the AGCT component, a FOXL2 analysis is in progress and an addendum will follow.

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

Final Pathologic Diagnosis:

Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment)

Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM.

Margins: Negative.

Comment

Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised.

12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon:

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion.

PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management.

Patient was diagnosed with low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011, later classified as hairy cell leukemia-variant.

Right cervical node biopsy in 2020 proved HCL-v and a subsequent 2021 right tongue base biopsy showed DLBCL. The tongue base biopsy path includes the comment, patient has history of HCL-v, but the morphology and flow cytology features are different from the patient's previous right cervical node biopsy. This DLBCL likely represents a second de novo lymphoma, but cannot exclude an unusual transformation of the prior HCL-v.

Per Heme Rule M7, abstract a single primary when a more specific histology is diagnosed after an NOS if the Heme DB confirms the same primary. The histology code for HCL-v, 9591/3 is a non-specific code, but it seems like a specific histology. The Heme Calculator does say 9591 and 9680 are the same primary, but we are unsure if that is correct for this case of HCL-v followed by DLBCL.

The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?

Recognizing the addition of the behavior requirement into this rule is an attempt to stop non-synchronous ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinomas from being accessioned as a single primary (SINQ 20200022), the issue with using behavior rather than timing is that now, synchronous separate/non-contiguous tumors that are invasive carcinoma NST (8500/3) and lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) (or vice versa) are separate primaries per M14.

Lobular and carcinoma, NST are separate rows in Table 3, so we cannot stop at M10 and code the mixed histology because there are two separate histologies with different behaviors. There is no rule that states we can just ignore the in situ tumors for the purpose of applying the M Rules. (We are instructed to ignore the in situ when coding histology only in certain circumstances.) The problem with Rule M10 appears to be related to timing.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor as a related term for histology code 8317 (Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type). However, this related term is not discussed in the implementation guidelines as being a new term/reportable tumor. The Solid Tumor Rules do not indicate a hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is reportable; however, if a registrar only looked at the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, it may seem as though this histology should be collected.

The term hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor was not included in the Solid Tumor Rules as a subtype/variant of RCC, or as an equivalent term for chromophobe RCC. There is a SINQ (20180047) that states not to report renal hybrid oncocytic tumor, despite the fact these tumors exhibit mixed features of both oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. For cases diagnosed 2021 and later, should the clarification in the SINQ apply? Or should the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table be used which indicates this is a reportable diagnosis? If the standard setters decided not to implement use of hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor for 2021, can clarification be added to the Solid Tumor Rules or Implementation Guidelines?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).

We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).

An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.

Transurethral resection: Microscopic Diagnosis: Bladder, transurethral resection: Low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma Gross Description: Received in formalin labeled with the patient's name and bladder tumor is a 3.0 x 2.0 1.0 cm aggregate of friable tan tissue biopsies. The specimen is submitted in toto, cassettes

This is all the information there is on this path report. Extent of Disease (EOD) instructions state inferred description of noninvasive: No statement of invasion (microscopic description present) SEER 2018 Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines state code behavior 3 if the only surgery performed is a transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) documenting that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen OR the pathology report does not mention whether the submucosa is free of tumor or has been invaded by tumor.