SEER Inquiry System - Search

Path report reads: 7/15/2019 A. Endometrium, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade. B. Endometrial polyp, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade.

If coded to 8461/3, according to AJCC, this would not be an ideal code (since it is outdated). Also, endometrium is not included in the suggested site codes for 8461/3 according to the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 update.

Path report reads: Lobular neoplasia, grade 2.

According to the AFIP nomenclature for DCIS (taken from the WHO terminology), this would be the equivalent of LCIS. But nowhere can I find this specifically applies to lobular in the same way that ductal neoplasia is treated.

Path reports often diagnose "melanoma with spitzoid features." There is no code for this in ICD-O-3. Would it be melanoma NOS with a specific type for MP/H rule H9 (with features of...), or would we stop at H3? Could the matrix principle apply, changing 8770/0 (one of the synonyms is Spitz nevus) to 8770/3 (although no Spitz synonyms are specifically listed under this code)? What if the path report says "melanoma arising in a Spitz nevus"?

Path states "microscopic focus of endocervical glands considered invasive adenoca...maximum depth of that focus measures approximately 2 mm. Maximum diameter of that focus measures 3-4 mm."

What size would be coded for this case: 999, 002, 003, or 004?

Pathologists are increasingly using the terms "myeloid stem cell disorder" and "myeloid stem cell neoplasm" to describe reportable myeloid neoplasms. If the pathologist uses these terms and indicates the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms such as myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), should this be accessioned as a reportable primary?

Example: The 01/2023 peripheral blood shows high grade myeloid stem cell disorder, and the differential diagnosis includes chronic myelomonocytic leukemia(CMML) and AML. The patient refused further work-up and expired several days later. No additional information is available.

Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?

If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?

How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

Pathology Diagnosis: Left temporal lesion - Low grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm BRAF mutant. Pathologist Comment: The histopathological appearance of this lesion does not allow for a definitive diagnosis. However, the low-grade appearance, fibrillary nature, immunohistochemical profile, and the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation allow this to be categorized as a low-grade glial or possibly glioneuronal tumor. Despite the lack of exact classification this neoplasm can be expected to behave in a very indolent manner consistent with a WHO grade I classification.

Pathology Final Diagnosis:

Left Ovary: Moderately differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma squamous differentiation grade 2 (scale of 3)

Uterus: Moderately differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation, grade II (scale of III). Focal, very superficial invasion to inner third myometrium with extension to lower uterine segment. Endocervix, cervix, right ovary and fallopian tubes negative for tumor.

Pathology reads: 1. FNA left groin lymph node tissue (smears and cell block): B-cell lymphoma, low grade. The concurrent flow cytometry (3-FC-16-288) identifies a monoclonal B cell population with immunophenotype of CD10++, CD5-, CD23-, CD20++ and unusual CD19-. Overall findings favor follicular lymphoma. FNA Specimen Adequacy: Evaluation for specimen adequacy: Immediate cytology smear review for specimen adequacy was performed at the time of the FNA procedure by pathologist. Smears reviewed from 2 passes in one reading. The specimen was adequate cytological evaluation. Surg Path Final Report Special Studies Immunohistochemistry (CD45, MCK, CD20, CD3, CD10, Bcl6, MUM1 \T\ Ki67) was performed on block 1A to confirm the diagnosis. All controls show appropriate reaction. Lymphoma cells are positive for CD45, CD20, CD10 and weakly positive for bcl6(+) and MUM1(+/-), and negative for MCK. CD3 highlights few T lymphocytes. Ki67 labeling index is low, less than 10%. The immunoprofile supports above diagnosis. Chromosomal study for t(14;18) translocation will be performed, and an addendum report will follow. Flow Final Report Comment: The lymphoma appears to be derived from germinal centre B cells. Together with the findings from the lymph node biopsy (3-FN16-416), follicular lymphoma is favored. However, negative CD19 and CD22 are unusual.