SEER Inquiry System - Search

The bone marrow was involved by lambda-restricted atypical B-cell and plasma cell populations with MYD88 mutation. Together these populations represent 10-15% of the bone marrow cellularity. While the bone marrow biopsy pathology alone did not provide a reportable diagnosis, the oncologist clinically diagnosed this as smoldering WM in the medical record.

Is a diagnosis of smoldering WM similar to a diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma (MM), a reportable Heme neoplasm, since smoldering neoplasms may be considered to meet the neoplasm’s threshold in the bone marrow but is otherwise asymptomatic?

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?

The CAP formatted pathology report histology field states, "Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS 98310/3)" and the tumor size comment field states, "Carcinoma involves a 1.5 cm endometrial polyp." Does rule H11 apply? Is the histology coded to clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because this is one histologic type identified in the CAP formatted histology field? Or should rule H12 apply and the histology coded as clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp [8210/3]? Or should we code the higher histology per rule H17 apply because clear cell adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in a polyp are two specific histologies?

For colon primaries, whether or not the tumor arose in a polyp is quite important. Is this also the case for primaries listed in the Other Sites category?

The case in question represents an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation that arises in the absence of androgen-deprivation therapy. A 2023 journal article states, “We show that amphicrine prostate cancer is a unique entity and differs in clinical and molecular features from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the prostate. Our study highlights the need to recognize AMPC as a unique molecularly defined subgroup of prostate cancer.”

Should we be coding this with histology 8140 (Adenocarcinoma, NOS) because we have no specific code for an amphicrine carcinoma? Should we code this as 8045 (Mixed small cell carcinoma) because this is possibly the only way to capture both the adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine components in a patient without previous treatment?

Our concern about using histology code 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation) is that, while a valid histology code, this might confound the data if researchers are trying to separate the truly treatment-related tumors from other histologies captured under 8574.

The case was reviewed by AFIP and called "extratesticular." Per our pathology consultant, the site should be coded to unknown because it is very doubtful that the tumor was primary in the soft tissue of the thigh. According to him, such tumors don't originate exclusively in the testes, but tend to occur along the central axis such as the mediastinum or retroperitoneum. If an extratesticular tumor arises in either of these areas, the primary site should be code to the mediastinum or the peritoneum rather than to unknown. Lesions primary in the testicle may also undergo maturation with fibrosis and involution. This process often leaves little evidence of the original tumor in the testis.

The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that

Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)?

The clinical history indicates a destructive, quickly growing intra-oral lesion in the left soft tissue vestibule and the entire left maxilla.

Pathology report final diagnosis: Oral cavity, left maxilla, incisional biopsy: Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, diffuse large B-cell type, immunoblastic variant.

The CS scheme for parotid places intraparotid lymph nodes under code 10 as well as code 12. Periparotid lymph nodes are included under code 12. Should both intraparotid and periparotid lymph nodes be included under code 10 only?

For head and neck sites, several lymph node groups fall into the "Other groups" category. They are not included in the level I-VII groups. In the coding schemes for most (but not all) of the head and neck sites, the "other groups" category includes intraparotid and periparotid lymph nodes and is coded 12 (or 52).

The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm.  The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance.

No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case.

Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant?

The definition for SSF6 for breast changed from "Unknown if invasive and in situ components present, unknown if tumor size represents mixed tumor or a pure tumor" to an added clarification of "Clinical tumor size coded." Since the clinical tumor size is NOT coded, this does not fit.

The definition for 060 is "Invasive and in situ components present, unknown size of tumor (CS Tumor Size coded 999). Since it is unknown if the tumor is mixed, this definition does not fit either.

It seems that the revised (April 2005) definition for 888 has left a situation that cannot be coded.