SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.

Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)

There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.

Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?

Example: Patient has multiple biopsies with final diagnosis of in situ papillary urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra and invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the bladder.

How should primary site be coded in this type of mixed in situ and invasive situation?

Example: Patient is diagnosed with grade 1 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the ileum, confirmed on ileocolic resection in 2023. The final diagnosis is a 2.8 cm ileal mass, with focal lymph-vascular invasion and a single 0.6 cm tumor deposit within mesenteric fat; primary tumor completely resected with widely negative margins and 10 regional nodes negative for malignancy.

According to AJCC, mesenteric masses less than 2 cm should be stated in the pathology report as being present and collected by registrars but do not affect stage. EOD Regional Nodes has a code for large mesenteric masses greater than 2 cm only. How should we record these smaller tumor deposits if they are not supposed to affect stage?

Example: Patient is found to have a 9.4 cm GIST in the jejunum and 2 cm GIST in the stomach during resection, neither stated to be outright malignant. Similar to the instruction in SINQ 20190041, this case is coded as a malignant jejunal primary due to multifocal tumor. However, it is unclear how to account for the stomach tumor, or any other multifocal tumor for GIST, when coding EOD and Summary Stage.

Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8?

Example: Pelvic ultrasound-19 mm thickened endometrium; bilateral ovaries unremarkable. Case was coded to 19 mm for clinical tumor size. I have always been taught NOT to use "endometrial stripe" or "thickening" measurements for clinical size. Can you confirm. Also, is this noted on any of the SEER resources such as SEER training or in the SEER tumor size guidelines? I wanted to point them out to a reference if it is available.

Example: Posterior fossa tumor resection final diagnosis was medulloblastoma, WHO Grade IV. The diagnosis comment notes the current tumor resection reveals large irregular reticulin-free nodules with streams of neoplastic cells in a fibrillary background in association with narrow reticulin-rich internodular strands of poorly differentiated neoplastic cells. Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity. The diagnosis comment provided only one histology.

Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Manual, Malignant CNS, Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology instructions, an addendum or comment has priority over the final diagnosis. Although indicative is not listed on any ambiguous terminology list, is this an ambiguous diagnosis that must be ignored? Or does the diagnosis comment in this case provide a single, specific diagnosis of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity?

Example: Pt underwent laminectomy and excision of intradural extramedullary tumor.

Is there a default decision for tumors described as intradural extramedullary tumors, NOS?

Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy.

Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity):

Procedure type: Lumpectomy.

Specimen laterality: Right.

Tumor size: 7mm.

Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma.

Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9).

Tumor focality: Single focus.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

Treatment effect: No known therapy.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present.

Architectural pattern: Cribriform.

Nuclear grade: Grade 1.

Necrosis: Not identified.

Calcifications: Not identified.

Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm.

Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed).

Distant metastasis: Not applicable.

Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).

Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent.