SEER Inquiry System - Search

This question involves positive cervical lymph nodes with an unknown primary site. The SEER Manual says under the coding instructions for Primary Site:

14. b.Use the NOS category for the organ system or the Ill-Defined Sites (C760-C768) if the physician advisor cannot identify a primary site.

Note: Assign C760 for Occult Head and Neck primaries with positive cervical lymph nodes.

Schema Discriminator 1: Occult Head and Neck Lymph Nodes is used to discriminate between these cases and other uses of C760. Does SEER agree with AJCC that cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are EBV+ should be coded to the nasopharynx and cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are p16+ should be coded to the oropharynx, if no primary site is identified?

According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075).

Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3).

We previously downloaded the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update tables which included the note, not reportable for 2018, for both of these terms (with an updated histology 8071/2). SINQ 20180020 confirms differentiated penile and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia are NOT reportable for 2018 (as does 20160069). However, when looking at the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update table today, the not reportable for 2018 comment has been removed and it appears these two terms are reportable. Which is correct?

Left frontal mass biopsy diagnosis comment states: Given the synaptophysin and patchy CD34 staining of these cells, the possibility of ganglioglioma and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma is raised. Astroblastoma and ependymoma were considered given the perivascular pseudorosettes, however GFAP staining is quite limited against these tumors. Reticulin stain shows limited perivascular reticulin staining however. Nevertheless, the necrosis, mitotic activity and elevated mitotic activity would point to a malignant neoplasm. Given the neural and limited GFAP staining, a generic classification of neuroglial is provided.

This is the only available information. Further clarification or discussion with the physician or pathologist is not possible. Therefore, is this diagnosis of neuroglial tumor equivalent to that described in SINQ 20091037?

There is a discrepancy between Notes 3 and 6 in the schemas Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma for EOD Primary Tumor. Note 3 describes extension/discontinuous metastasis to the pelvic sites (code 450) and includes the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum since these are all pelvic sites. However, Note 6 also includes rectosigmoid and sigmoid colon.

Note 6 is describing extension/discontinuous metastasis to the abdominal sites (600-750), so it should include rectosigmoid or sigmoid colon (since those are pelvic sites). Note 6 indicates, Intestine, large (except rectum). In the previous Collaborative Stage, the corresponding note used to also include: except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum.

Did sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid get removed from the list here? That is, should Note 6 read, Intestine, large (except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, rectum)? Involvement of the sigmoid, rectosigmoid, or rectum via peritoneal seeding/metastasis is consistent with T2b disease and would correlate with code 450 (pelvic sites), not codes 600-750 (abdominal sites). Those codes only correlate with T3 and greater disease (i.e., peritoneal seeding/metastasis of the abdomen).

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 patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?

Patient was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer (liver metstasiss) and started on Folfox with Avastin. The medical oncologist decided to continue maintenance treatment with Xeloda and Avastin.

Per Colon NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2019, interest in the use of maintenance therapy approach after first-line treatment of unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer is growing. In general, this approach involves intensive first-line therapy, followed by less intensive therapy until progression in patients with good response to initial treatment.

Colon Therapy

5/1/18 Colonoscopy biopsy: mod diff colon adenoca, MMR proficient, BRAF wild type

5/5/18 Liver biopsy: mets from colon cancer

6/18/18 " 11/20/2018 Med Onc: started 12 cycles Chemo - Folfox (Fluorouracil, leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) with Avastin

11/28/18 CT Pelvis: continued improvement in the liver mets; no residual tumor involving colon; no new mas or adenopathy in the chest, abdomen or pelvis

12/02/18 Med Onc follow up: Pt had tremendous response to chemotherapy and Avastin, cancer is not curable. Is amenable to maintenance therapy with Xeloda and Avastin; also amenable to descending colectomy in the future

1/7/19 Med Onc: starting maintenance treatment Xeloda + Avastin.