SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient presented with hoarseness and palpable neck mass. No palpable adenopathy (per hospital abstract).

02/19/16 Thyroid Ultrasound: Right thyroid lobe with mass, 63X35X44XMM (per hospital abstract).

06/01/16 Right thyroid lobectomy, radical resection right laryngeal tumor (per hospital abstract).

06/01/16 Operative Procedure: Tumor was invading laryngeal soft tissue and cartilage anteriorly and to the right. There may be a small amount of residual tumor invading cartilage although this was not clear (per hospital abstract).

GROSS DESCRIPTION: 1. The specimen is received fresh for intraoperative consultation, labeled with the patient's name and "right thyroid mass." It consists of a 3.0 x 2.2 x 2.0 cm irregular, ragged fragment of tan-red, firm, rubbery soft tissue. The specimen is serially sectioned to reveal a tan-red, gritty cut surface with focal fleshy areas. A touch prep is performed. A representative section is submitted for frozen section analysis in 1FSA. A portion of tissue is submitted for flow cytometry with the accession number MSO-16-1786. The remaining specimen is entirely submitted in 4 additional cassettes (1B-1E). 2. The specimen is received in formalin and is labeled "right thyroid lobe." It consists of a thyroid lobe measuring 4.3 x 4.0 x 1.3 cm and weighing 10.0 g. The external surface is covered by a thin fibrous capsule with a focal area of roughening on the posterior surface. The lobe is inked black posterior, blue anterior and orange isthmus margin. Serial sectioning reveals a red-brown and beefy parenchyma. A definitive nodule is not grossly identified. The entire specimen is serially submitted from superior to inferior in 9 cassettes. 3. The specimen is received in formalin, labeled with the patient's name and "right neck/laryngeal mass." It consists of an irregular, focally nodular red-tan mass measuring 7.0 x 5.5 x 4.0 cm and weighing 54 g. The convex portion of the specimen is mostly encapsulated with focal adherent red-brown striated skeletal muscle. The concave portion of the specimen is focally ragged and disrupted. The convex portion of the specimen is inked black and the concave portion is inked blue. The specimen is serially sectioned to reveal a white-grey to red, granular, gritty cut surface with focal fleshy areas. Representative sections are submitted in 12 cassettes.

Final DX DIAGNOSIS: 1. Right thyroid mass excision Plasma cell tumor /plasmacytoma 3 cm. Tumor cells are positive for kappa and negative for lambda immunostains. Recommend correlation with flow cytometry MSO-16-1786, monoclonal plasma cell population with cytoplasmic kappa positivity. Ki-67 stains 7 percent of cells. Focal stromal hyalinization. Congo red stain for amyloid negative. No thyroidal tissue identified. 2. Right thyroid lobe excision Benign thyroid tissue with focal solid cell nest negative for malignancy. One out of two 1/2 perithyroidal lymph nodes positive for plasma cell tumor. 3. Laryngeal mass excision Plasma cell tumor /plasmacytoma 7 cm involving soft tissue and skeletal muscle. Tumor cells are positive for kappa and negative for lambda immunostains. Ki-67 stains 7 percent of cells. Focal stromal hyalinization and calcification. Congo red stain for amyloid negative

The Histology Coding Instructions give priority to the Final Diagnosis over the CAP protocol. However, when pathology reports are formatted using the CAP protocol, the presence of in situ carcinoma is generally only mentioned in the CAP protocol. Can the presence of in situ tumor mentioned only in the CAP protocol be used to apply rule H7 (Single Tumor: Invasive and In Situ Components Module)? Or are the rules in the Single Tumor: Invasive Only module used?

Example: Final diagnosis is invasive ductal carcinoma. CAP protocol mentions,

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.

This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor.

An endometrial cancer was diagnosed in 2018. The endometrial biopsy showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (MMMT/Carcinosarcoma). The total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy showed Endometrial Carcinosarcoma (50% serous carcinoma, 50% high grade sarcoma with rhabdomyoblastic differentiation) with invasion of 100% of the myometrium and involvement of the uterine serosa. I am not finding this in the Solid Tumor Rules or the site-specific ICD-O-3 code lists.