SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

Example: Left thyroid lobectomy with final diagnosis

When the only mention of encapsulation is included in the tumor characteristics of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary, not the pathologist's choice of histologic type, what is the preferred histology?

SINQ 20180050 and 20130041 appear to have conflicting answers regarding the reportability of MBL with CLL (immuno)phenotype.

While the question content of SINQ 20180050 does not reference the CLL phenotype, it is included in the Discussion as part of the oncologist's assessment. The answer does not address the clinical diagnosis of MBL with CLL-phenotype and simply states that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not reportable.

SINQ 20130041 does include the CLL phenotype information in the primary question and it is expanded on in the discussion as present in peripheral blood. Based on that information, the answer is that it should be reportable and coded as CLL (9823/3).

Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded.

Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung.

Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant.

No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options.

Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0.

Pathology Diagnosis: Left temporal lesion - Low grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm BRAF mutant. Pathologist Comment: The histopathological appearance of this lesion does not allow for a definitive diagnosis. However, the low-grade appearance, fibrillary nature, immunohistochemical profile, and the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation allow this to be categorized as a low-grade glial or possibly glioneuronal tumor. Despite the lack of exact classification this neoplasm can be expected to behave in a very indolent manner consistent with a WHO grade I classification.

Patient has a history of breast cancer and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), both treated with chemotherapy and radiation.

On 6/26/19, bone marrow biopsy: MDS with excess blasts-2 (18% dysplastic blasts) in a normocellular marrow (overall 40% cellularity) with trilineage dysplasia. Comment: least myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2. However, an early/evolving AML cannot be completely excluded. The findings likely represent therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.

MD note on 7/15/19: Diagnosis: MDS, high grade borderline AML with complex karyotype secondary disease. Patient has high grade MDS which is bordering on AML transformation with 20% blasts by IHC and areas higher than this. This is likely secondary to the treatment she has received for her other cancers particularly pelvic radiation for her DLBCL. Given her very high IPSS score, it is likely she will eventually develop AML. No treatment given.

On 7/15/19, bone marrow biopsy: Persistent acute leukemia in a marrow with trilineage dyspoiesis and 23% blasts.

ICD-O-3 Rule H states to use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not stated in the diagnosis. This topography code should be ignored if the tumor arose in another site. For the following brain and central nervous system (CNS) examples, should the suggested sub-site codes be assigned based on the histology, or should the primary sites be coded as C719 (posterior fossa or suprasellar brain) since the only information available was a tumor in these non-specific sites?

Example 1: Resection of a posterior fossa tumor proved medulloblastoma, WNT-activated. Although medulloblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C716, cerebellum), the only information available is that this was a posterior fossa tumor (C719).

Example 2: Resection of a suprasellar brain tumor proved pineoblastoma. The pathologist labeled this as a brain tumor, suprasellar. Although pineoblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C753, pineal gland), the only information available is that this was a suprasellar brain tumor (C719).

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?

I understand that we are to record the Clinical Tumor Size in Tumor Size Summary because of the neoadjuvant therapy, but the SEER manual does not address what to record in the Pathologic Tumor Size after neoadjuvant therapy. Would we record 999 or the size of the in-situ tumor in the Pathologic Tumor Size field? Will there ever be a new data item added or changes to this current data item? By recording the Patholigic Tumor Size this way, there currently will not be any way to compare tumor size clinically versus after neoadjuvant therapy and assessing the response.