SEER Inquiry System - Search

An argument could be made to apply Rule M10 (timing rule which may result in reporting the case as an additional primary) because the 2022 primary included multiple non-invasive urothelial carcinoma tumors in both the bladder and other urinary sites (coded to site C689, not C679) following a long disease-free interval. While Rule M10 excludes multiple bladder tumors, does that also apply when new, multifocal urothelial tumors arise in both bladder and other urinary sites? Does the presence of any subsequent bladder tumor rule out the use of M10 and one must use M11 that indicates reporting this disease process is a single 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?

ICD-O-3 tells us that perianal skin is C445 and we do not capture basal or squamous cell skin cancers in our registry. The AJCC manual stages perianal skin cancers within 5 cm of the anus with the anus chapter.  We cannot AJCC stage them as an anus if we are not capturing them as C445.  I realize we do not code a site in order to stage. We have been following the reportability rules and not capturing. Is this correct? I do not see this addressed in the new Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.

Patient had a hemithyroidectomy with the final diagnosis above. There does not appear to be an Other Sites H rule or table that addresses this combination of histologies for thyroid primaries.

The 10/2023 TURBT final diagnosis is “Urothelial carcinoma with mixed histologic appearances, see synoptic summary below for details.” The synoptic report includes, “Histologic Type Comment: Invasive carcinoma percentages: Micropapillary 60-70%, high grade or poorly differentiated urothelial 20-30%, squamous 10-20%.” The squamous component is stated to be “Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation.”

It appears there are two specific urothelial carcinoma subtypes to consider: Urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary variant (8131/3) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (8020/3). The squamous component would not be considered because there is no specific histology for “squamous differentiation.”

The micropapillary component is the predominant histology (60-70%) in this case, and it does seem like this is important to capture. However, the WHO Blue Book indicates poorly differentiated carcinoma of the bladder has a poor prognosis.

The patient has a history of ganglioglioma, WHO grade I, involving the deep right parietal lobe diagnosed on resection in 07/2012. Tumor recurrence in 2017 was treated with radiation.

The patient then had right temporal tumor biopsy and resection 06/2021 with final diagnosis of anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, BRAF p.V600E mutant, WHO Grade III. Pathologist notes that the tumor demonstrates a ganglioglioma with frequent mitoses and possible vascular proliferation. Subsequent consult findings support an anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, compatible with progression of the patient's ganglioglioma that is post-irradiation. However, the pleomorphic and epithelioid areas are also reminiscent of pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, which may occur in combination with ganglion cell components. There is no related SINQ to code this histology.

There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors.

If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11?

March 2022, left shoulder soft tissue mass excision shows a spindle cell tumor with outside consultation diagnosis of malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement. Diagnosis comments indicate the findings most closely resemble the spectrum of kinase-rearranged mesenchymal neoplasms, such as lipofibromatosis-like neural tumor. However, the expression of SOX10 and mature melanocytic markers is unusual, and does not exclude melanocytic differentiation.

Should this be classified as a peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (9364) or as an "NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm (emerging)" (8990) if there is a NTRK gene rearrangement?