SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient has adenopathy in multiple lymph node regions above and below the diaphragm and a lymph node biopsy pathology proved CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Further work-up with peripheral blood proved an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population comprising only a small percentage of the white blood cells (WBCs). The pathologist noted this neoplastic B-cell population comprises “3.5% of white blood cells and has an immunophenotype characteristic of CLL/SLL and is similar to the recent lymph node biopsy in this patient.” The managing physician indicated this was a Lugano Stage III SLL. The registrar coded the peripheral blood involvement in EOD Primary Tumor.

If this small percentage of WBCs with an abnormal B-cell population is included in EOD Primary Tumor as peripheral blood involvement, then this would indicate peripheral blood/bone marrow involvement and primary site would need to be coded to C421 per Rule PH5. Rules PH5 and PH6 confirm primary site must be coded C421 if peripheral blood or bone marrow are involved.

Is there a cutoff value for these abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood? Or should these abnormal B-cell populations be ignored unless the pathologist states the abnormal B-cell population is consistent with CLL/SLL (not just immunophenotypically characteristic of CLL/SLL)?

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.

SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”

This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?

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?

The resection pathology report final diagnosis indicates this is both mixed mucinous and non-mucinous with a lepidic predominant component. The pathologist notes this is “Lepidic: 75%. Acinar: 25%.”  The percentage of the mucinous component is not documented.

Rule H1, Note 1, states “When mucinous carcinoma is mixed with another histology, such as adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, code mucinous ONLY when mucinous is documented to be greater than 50% of the tumor.” While mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous carcinoma is included in Table 2 (Combination/Mixed Histology Codes) without a required percentage, it is unclear whether one should move past Rule H7 and use Rule H8 to code this combination histology code. Rule H7 would instruct one to code the histology to lepidic adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant) based on the percentage of the lepidic component in the tumor. However, this does not address the mixed mucinous and non-mucinous diagnosis. Which H Rule and histology apply to this case?

Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2.

All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule.

Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies?

The patient was diagnosed with a biopsy-proven 12/2020 LUL SCC treated with radiation only, followed by a right hilar lymph node biopsy in 07/2022, that proved “metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma” per pathology and treated with radiation, followed by a biopsy-proven 12/2022 RLL SCC to be treated with immunotherapy only. The imaging never definitively identified a lung tumor that can be assumed to be a primary adenocarcinoma tumor.  In 06/2022, a PET scan only described a “strongly PET positive Rt inferior hilar LN vs infrahilar pulmonary mass,” as well as the subsequently biopsy-proven SCC in the RLL (12/2022 SCC primary). The biopsy path indicates this was a right hilar lymph node metastasis and does not indicate this is an infrahilar pulmonary mass. No other PET positive pulmonary lesions were seen at the time.

The oncologist’s assessment indicates the right hilar node was the only positive finding on the biopsy, and it was unclear if this right hilar node metastasis was from the left lung or if the primary was “not detectable.” The oncologist summarized this as a LUL lung lesion radiated for SCC, a right hilar lesion radiated for adenocarcinoma, and a RLL lung lesion on pathology found to be SCC.

Should the interval occurring metastatic adenocarcinoma be accessioned as a separate lung, NOS primary based on the histology difference? While the Solid Tumor Rules do not apply to metastasis, the oncologist did treat these three malignancies separately and does not indicate the hilar lymph node metastasis was felt to be from either SCC primary.

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a.  There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b.  The patient has localized disease;

c.  The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?