SEER Inquiry System - Search

Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?

Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.

Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, "The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin)."

Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:

Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less

Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7

Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7

Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8

Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10

Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.

The prostate-related fields include:

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy

Pathology report diagnosis: Urethral lesion: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, see microscopic. Clinical Information: Urethral Lesion/Hematura. Microscopic Description: The biopsy shows dilated ductal structures filled with anaplastic epithelium showing areas of comedo-type necrosis. The tumor cells have enlarged nuclei prominent nucleoli and mitoses are identified. Surrounding benign prostatic tissue is also present. Immunostains show that the tumor cells stain for PSA, PSAP, P504s but are negative for GATA-3. The other components of the PIN 4 stain CK5/14 and P63 stain the basal cells surrounding the tumor confirming the intraductal nature of the process. Intraductal carcinoma should not be confused with high grade PIN as the former is usually associated with high grade invasive tumor. Is this C619 and 8500/2?

There are multiple possible entries (rows) for a tumor with a neuroendocrine component and non-neuroendocrine component, but these rows do not specify which primary sites are applicable. Row 1 (Combined small cell carcinoma, 8045) seems applicable to a prostate primary, but not to a GI primary since GI primaries are now generally referred to as MiNENs (mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine tumors), but Table 2 does not provide any instructions regarding how to determine the difference between 8045 and 8154 (or 8244).

For SEER Workshop Case 03 (mixed prostate case), many users selected 8154 or 8244 as the mixed histology code per Table 2, but these histology codes are not listed as applicable in Table 3 (Prostate Histologies). Per the WHO Blue Books, these histologies are not listed as applicable to the prostate.

How are registrars to determine the correct mixed code without site designations, especially if they don't have access to the WHO Blue Book or to a pathologist who may be able to clarify the codes?

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”