SEER Inquiry System - Search

Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).

Since acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm comes from human tissue donors with cells removed and sterilized to promote regenesis and decrease rejection, is Alloderm coded as "Tissue' as it also "provides an additional layer of tissue between the skin and the implant?

I recently did a presentation on coding the data item Race. In my presentation I discussed understanding geography help code race in some circumstances. One of the slides demonstrates how large Polynesia is and what Pacific islands are found in Polynesia, such as, Tahiti, Samoa, and even Hawaii, all of which have their own codes. Someone in the audience asked "How do you code New Zealand? Upon some research, New Zealand is not listed in Appendix D of the SEER coding manual. We could code them 01-White. But research shows there is a very large indigenous population. Technically, New Zealand is located within the boundaries of Polynesia - Code 25 (Polynesian).

The Summary Cancer Data does not seem to describe a more specific histology, but it does describe the tumor histology with the worst outcome and the most extensive tumor. The anaplastic carcinoma grossly extended into skeletal muscle and gave rise to multiple regional lymph node metastases. The more appropriate histology seems to be 8021.

However, current MP/H Rules for a single tumor indicate the histology should be coded to the numerically higher histology code (8260). Coding the histology to 8260 does not account for the more aggressive tumor. Should this histology be 8260 or 8021?

Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.

SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.

The pathologist noted this was a challenging brain neoplasm that did not easily fit into a specific WHO diagnostic classification. Multiple differential diagnoses were given including pilomyxoid astrocytoma, ganglioglioma and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET), but there were no definitive features characteristic of any of these tumors. In the Comment section following the Final Diagnosis, it further states: "In summary, the tumor appears to be a difficult to classify non-infiltrating glial/glioneuronal neoplasm without definitive high-grade features."

When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system.

Surgery text indicates TAH-BSO with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. The pathology report indicates the specimen includes: Uterine corpus, cervix, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes, bilateral parametria. The Gross Description also indicates: Representative sections submitted in 16 cassettes as follows: A1: Anterior cervix A2: Posterior cervix A3: Full thickness anterior lower uterine segment A4: Full thickness posterior lower uterine segment A5: Tumor A6-A7: Full thickness anterior endomyometrium to include tumor A8-A10: Full thickness posterior endomyometrium with tumor A11: Representative sections of right fallopian tube and fimbria A12: Representative sections of right ovary A13: Representative sections of left fallopian tube and fimbria A14: Representative sections of left ovary A15: Right parametrial tissue A16: Left parametrial tissue A17-23: Remainder of cervix.

Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?

In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?