SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.

We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051.  The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET).  Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET).  In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list.  Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else?  Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS.  For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.

There is a discrepancy in the SEER and STORE manual definition of code 2 for Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site. STORE includes progression of tumor prior to planned surgery as part of the definition for code 2, but the SEER Manual does not. The progression statement is included in the SEER Manual (2018 and 2021) for Reason for No Radiation, but not for Reason for No Surgery.

Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia).

While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755.

Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755.

The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary.

5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate

10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring.

06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor.

07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic.

Scenario: Patient had a transurethral resection of the prostate on 8-29-19, positive for basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation involving approximately 50% of tissue (determined not to be mets by consult). On 11-14-19, the patient had a prostatectomy positive for residual basal cell carcinoma and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma. According to AJCC, 8th edition, page 724, basal cell carcinoma of the prostate is 8147/3 and we ignored the small focus of adenocarcinoma. The above scenario was reported as two primaries (8090/3 and 8140/3), but we are thinking it is one.

Table 3 (Breast Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists “Neuroendocrine tumor, well-differentiated” of the breast as histology 8246/3. There is no entry for a grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor of the breast in Table 3.  

The pathologist did not indicate the neuroendocrine tumor was poorly differentiated (or it would otherwise be a small cell carcinoma). The pathologist noted “By current WHO criteria, this tumor is characteristic of a mammary neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.  These invasive tumors have similar prognostic and predictive features of invasive ductal carcinoma of the same grade and stage.”

Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC).

Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction.

If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11.