SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable?

After a little research, it appears as though Endometrial Dedifferentiated carcinoma is a relatively new term and is set to be included in ICD-O-3.2:

http://www.iacr.com.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=100&Itemid=577

If you look at the link on that page for All Additions, Changes, and Revisions to the ICD-O-3, 1st Revision for ICDO-3.2, there is 8020/3 Dedifferentiated carcinoma. Currently, 8020/3 is Carcinoma, undifferentiated, NOS. For 2018 diagnosis, would you use 8020/3 for a predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma as stated in the pathology: Uterus, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes; supracervical hysterectomy/BSO: Predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma in the endometrium, FIGO grade 1 Portion of omentum, omental/anterior abdominal wall/ round ligament/uterine/small bowel mesenteric tumor nodules all involved by dedifferentiated carcinoma. Synoptic reads as follows: Histological Type: Endometrioid carcinoma, NOS Dedifferentiated carcinoma predominantly Histological Grade: Endometrioid carcinoma, FIGO grade 1.

The SEER Manual states, Generally, this rule is invoking the Matrix principle in the ICD-O-3.

We are aware this is not the same as a VIN III or an adenoma with microinvasion because those tumors have a valid histology code listed in the ICD-O-3. The terms or or do not have a valid ICD-O-3 code to apply the Matrix principle.

If severe dysplasia is felt to be consistent with a carcinoma in situ, then a severe dysplasia with microinvasion would be reportable as 8010/3. But in the U.S., we do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ).

For example, 9/12/18 left lung upper lobe lobectomy: 1.5 cm, 0.8 cm invasive component, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma with acinar and lepidic patterns, G2, no visceral pleural invasion, no LVI, 0/14 LNS positive. An additional minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, 1 mm, was seen away from the main tumor. The correct coding of the minimally invasive adenocarcinoma will ultimately determine if we have one tumor (using rule M7) versus two primaries (using rule M6).

Example: Mastectomy specimen final diagnosis shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma including: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma (tumor #1, 1 cm, slices 6 and 7) and invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type (tumor #2, 1.2 cm, slices 9 and 10).

Summary Staging outlines, Tumor #1: Histologic Type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma. As well as, Tumor #2: Histologic type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type. Additional findings include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): presently approximately 3.3 cm, spanning slices 10-13.

The behavior of the solid papillary carcinoma component will affect the provisional histology of the first tumor (8523/3) per Rule H17 vs. 8500/3 per Rule H7). Based on the response, we can determine whether this represents a single or multiple primaries (single primary per M13 vs. multiple primaries per M14).

There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology.

The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3).

Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost.