SEER Inquiry System - Search

Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Rule M5 instructs us to abstract a single primary (as malignant) when a single tumor is originally diagnosed as non-malignant, the “First course treatment was active surveillance (no tumor resection),” and the subsequent resection pathology is malignant.

This patient’s first course of treatment was not active surveillance. While the patient did not have first course tumor resection, the tumor was treated with Cabergoline.

Should Rule M5 apply because there was no tumor resection? If so, should Rule M5 clearly state no tumor resection is the criteria (not active surveillance)?

SINQ 20230023 does indicate a PitNET diagnosis following a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma does not fall into standard rules, but in the previous SINQ the first course treatment was a partial resection.

It is unclear whether other types of treatment could result in a new malignant PitNET, following a previously treated non-malignant pituitary tumor.

Mantle cell lymphoma diagnosed in 1997 which was treated with chemotherapy. Now in 2014 a 'relapse' of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They do a biopsy of the pericardium, which is called low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. See comment. The comment says histochemical stains are reviewed and findings are consistent with involvement by a CD5 positive low grade B cell lymphoma. Lack of cyclin D1 and SOX-11 positivity as well as negative IGH-CCND1 FISH analysis essentially rule out mantle cell lymphoma. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features of this disorder are not specific for any lymphoma subtype. The differential includes CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. If this is coded NHL, NOS (9591) it is the same primary as seq. 1 and would not be abstracted.

Many interpret Rule M7 to mean when separate occurrences of TCC of the bladder are diagnosed more than 3 years apart, it is reportable as a second primary. However, doesn't Rule M6 mean that if the histology is any combination of 8050, 8120-8124 or 8130-8131 for tumors diagnosed more than 3 years apart, they are reported as a single primary?

March 2017 lung biopsy showing metastatic melanoma. Subsequent workup shows imaging with additional metastatic involvement of multiple bone sites but no primary tumor is identified. Chemotherapy is started in May 2017.

July 2017 biopsy of right lower quadrant mass has a final diagnosis of ganglioneuroblastoma and pathologist's comment states I believe that this may represent transdifferentiation of metastatic melanoma. Later, partial colectomy of transverse colon Gross Description indicates this was centered in the mesentery.

March 2022, left shoulder soft tissue mass excision shows a spindle cell tumor with outside consultation diagnosis of malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement. Diagnosis comments indicate the findings most closely resemble the spectrum of kinase-rearranged mesenchymal neoplasms, such as lipofibromatosis-like neural tumor. However, the expression of SOX10 and mature melanocytic markers is unusual, and does not exclude melanocytic differentiation.

Should this be classified as a peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (9364) or as an "NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm (emerging)" (8990) if there is a NTRK gene rearrangement?

Mature teratoma is listed as a benign neoplasm (9080/0) in the ICD-O-3. SINQ 20120085 references a NAACCR Webinar that indicated pure mature teratomas of the testis in adults are reportable. We are not aware of any further documentation of this change in reportability. When did mature teratomas of the testis for adults become reportable? What is the defined age range for "adult"? The original SINQ question above lists the 2012 SEER Manual as a Reference, however, no clarification or mention of this change in reportability was found in that manual.

Mixed odontogenic tumor consistent with dentinoameloblastoma, 9.5 cm, See Note: Tumor involves maxillary bone including hard palate, alveolar ridges, nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses bilaterally and buccal soft tissue. Lymphovascular invasion not identified. Perineural invasion not identified. Margins: Tumor involves right posterior bone (alveolar) margin. All other margins negative. Note: This is a rare hybrid tumor showing features of ameloblastoma producing pre-dentin/osteodentin matrix. Submucosal tumor is seen in the nasal cavities and palate. A congo red stain shows that the acellular dentin-like matrix fluoresces similar to collagen after polarization. Immunohistochemistry shows that the tumor cells are diffusely and strongly positive for p63, focally positive for CK19, and negative for CK5/6, SOX10, S100 and calretinin.

Multilocular clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a specifc histologic type listed in the CAP cancer protocol for kidney, but not in the ICD-O-3 and it is not on the list of specific types of renal cell carcinomas in Table 1 of the kidney equivalent terms and definitions in the MP/H manual. There is a malignant multilocular cystic nephroma 8959 in Table 1, but I can't tell if this the same histology as what is stated in this path report.

Multiple myeloma was diagnosed more than 5 years prior to admission. The patient underwent multimodality treatment.

Currently, the patient suffered a fracture. The pathology report diagnosis was "plasmacytoma." The discharge summary states, "multiple myeloma advanced with multiple lytic lesions".

Does this scenario represent a single primary dating back to the original diagnosis? Or does the diagnosis of plasmacytoma on the recent biopsy indicate a new primary because it was originally diagnosed as acute and reverts to a chronic neoplasm after treatment more than 21 days later?

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?