SEER Inquiry System - Search

There was a single right fallopian tube tumor with two distinct morphologies. The diagnosis comment states, “The combined morphologic and immunohistochemical features are best classified as primary fallopian tube high grade serous carcinoma with a somatically derived yolk sac tumor.”

These diagnoses were made greater than one year apart with a disease-free interval and M12 seems to be the first rule that applies. This rule does not specifically state the tumors diagnosed greater than 1 year apart must be in the same primary site but Note 1 could be interpreted as implying this. Note 1 states, “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow-up.”

Does Other Sites Rule M12 (the timing rule) apply to tumors in different primary sites? It would be helpful if the notes specified this clarification, such as “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site (same second and third character CXX.X) on follow-up.”

This case was abstracted as two primaries, adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] per Rules M5 and M10. If this is reported as only two primaries, what is the stage for each tumor? The non-small cell tumors were the most invasive, but they were not a separate primary per Rule M10.

Final pathology diagnosis for a RUL lobectomy and chest wall resection: Carcinoma of the lung with the following features:

1. Non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated (see comment). Two foci in same lobe: 10 cm and 3 cm (largest dimensions of each tumor). Invades pleura (PL3), main bronchus and chest wall invasion present.

2. Adenocarcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (see comment). Histologic subtype: Acinar and papillary (adenocarcinoma); non-mucinous (BAC). Two foci in same lobe: up to 1.0 cm. Pleural invasion absent, chest wall invasion absent.

3. Metastatic carcinoma in 5/7 peribronchial LN's.

Two histologically distinct neoplasms identified in the lobectomy/chest wall resection specimen: Poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, present as two foci; and adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus.

This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.

This diagnosis is not listed in the ICD-O-3 though it is listed as code 9509/1 for this specific tumor in the 2007 WHO classification of Tumours of Central Nervous System. (See link:  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4/fulltext.html.)

This patient does not have a previous diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma nor a previous history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

Does the logic in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) noted in SINQ 20200052 still apply? This SINQ confirms a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8045. This matches the STRs instructions for Rule H21 and Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes), row 1. Row 1 indicates a mixed small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is combined small cell carcinoma (8045). For a patient without previous treatment, is this the correct mixed histology code?

This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.

The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of "malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis." Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]?

This patient has massive splenomegaly. The biopsy final diagnosis was "low grade B lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)." The pathologist's comment states, "Because of the clinical context (lymphocytosis and splenomegaly) a splenic marginal zone lymphoma is a possibility." There are no other histologic diagnoses. All the flow cytometry reports are as unclear as the biopsy.

The hematologist, after seeing the pathology report, states, "The bone marrow biopsy shows a significant infiltration by mature lymphocytes; their markers strongly suggest a marginal zone lymphoma, probably of splenic origin The final diagnosis is a splenic marginal zone lymphoma."

Should the clinical diagnosis of splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3] be coded when a clinical diagnosis is not listed as a definitive diagnostic method for this neoplasm? Or should the histology be coded as low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]? The clinicians will expect the case to be coded as a splenic marginal zone lymphoma when there's no doubt about the diagnosis.

This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?

This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor.