SEER Inquiry System - Search

Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.

LARYNGOSCOPY - ENDOLARYNGEAL EXAM WAS GROSSLY UNREMARKABLE EXCEPT THAT SHE APPEARS TO HAVE A T1A SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA OF THE RIGHT TRUE VOCAL FOLD. IT EXTENDS FROM ALMOST THE ANTERIOR COMMISSURE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VOCAL PROCESS AND IS EXOPHYTIC IN NATURE. IT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE VENTRICLE OR ONTO THE FALSE VOCAL FOLD. NO SUBGLOTTIC EXTENSION IS SEEN. A. RIGHT POSTERIOR FALSE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY:  SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA IN SITU. B. RIGHT POSTERIOR TRUE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY:  SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. C. RIGHT MID TRUE VOCAL CORD, BIOPSY:  SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. D. RIGHT ANTERIOR TRUE VOCAL FOLD, BIOPSY:  INVASIVE AND IN SITU SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, MODERATELY DIFFERENTIATED.

LI-RADS (liver), PI-RADS (prostate), and TI-RADS (thyroid) can be used to determine reportability. BI-RADS (breast) and Lung-RADS cannot be used to determine reportability. Can these systems below to determine reportability?

C-RADS (from CT colonography)

NI-RADS (head & neck)

O-RADS (ovarian-adnexal)

LUL lobectomy: 1.7 cm apical tumor, diagnosis: moderately well differentiated subpleural squamous cell carcinoma, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.

1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done

2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs

LUL lobectomy: 1.7cm apical tumor, DX=mod well diff subpleural SCC, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.

1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done

2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs

3. Scope of regional LN surgery is coded

Would the surgery to primary site code 30 or 33?

Laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III is not included in the ICD-O-3.2 and, while the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) confirms this is reportable, neither the SPCSM nor the Solid Tumor Rules Manual provide the specific histology to use for LIN II or LIN III. Should this be coded as 8077/2 since this is most like a high grade squamous dysplasia?

Laterality is often not noted for these sella turcica meningiomas; therefore, Laterality is often coded as 9 (Unknown). Because the sella turcica appears to be a midline structure in the base of the skull, is Laterality code 5 (midline) more appropriate when additional information is unavailable?

Left Eye Conjunctiva, biopsy (01/23/2018): Conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe. Is intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe the same as coding 8077/2?

Left breast invasive lobular ca diagnosed 3/00 and treated with a lumpectomy, but with multiple positive margins; she received no post operative radiation or other medical treatment (unknown why). 10/08 core biopsy of "an area of distortion" near the scar site is positive for invasive lobular ca. The radiologist states "compatible with recurrence at her previous lumpectomy site" on an x-ray report.

One thought is that this should not be a new primary because the patient was never disease free (multiple positive margins) and the patient received incomplete treatment. Or should this be a new primary because the tumors are diagnosed more that 5 years apart?

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?