SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ 20200057 states to use SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms newly identified to use 8020/3 in this example for lung. The annotated histology list shows this histology followed by (C34._) for 2023 forward. An esophagus pathology states the following, "The histologic features and immunohistochemical profile are those of a SMARCA2/SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm." Is the 8020/3 histology valid for esophagus or other sites?

SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”

This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?

Site: Bladder

CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.

Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.

OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior

Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.

Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma.

If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note?

SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.

Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).

PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.

Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3.

Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific?

Smoldering multiple myeloma is reportable. However, it is unclear if a diagnosis of borderline smoldering multiple myeloma should be accessioned when no further follow-up with the physician is possible. The physician stated the patient, "most likely has borderline smoldering multiple myeloma, but mostly MGUS," and further noted the definition of smoldering myeloma requires at least 10% of plasma cells involved with the neoplasm and some areas of the patient's bone marrow does meet the 10% plasma cell threshold. The physician noted the patient does not need treatment because of the favorable cytogenetics and lack of organ dysfunction.

Should the term "borderline" be ignored and the case accessioned? Or is a borderline smoldering myeloma non-reportable?

Some facilities in our reporting region submit pathology reports that document invasive melanoma cases with a subtype stated to be a "growth pattern." The MP/H rules state that we are not to use the term "pattern" to code the histology of invasive tumors. However, applying this rule means the more specific histology will not be recorded for any of these cases. Can the term "growth pattern" be a more specific histologic type for invasive melanomas when no other information is available?

Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex.

Specifically, CS Ext code 80 includes nodular involvement of the lungs. The CT report for this patient states that the lungs are nodular. Is that enough to use code 80? Can the liver be coded as involved based on the operative findings?

Scenario: The patient was diagnosed with lymphoma. The CT showed pulmonary nodules. The pt had an exploratory laparotomy with a positive mesenteric LN bx and a positive ileocecectomy. The operative findings included a nodular liver. No staging was done by the oncologist and he has the pt on CHOP-R.