SEER Inquiry System - Search

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 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.

The diagnosis date is 2/24/14.  The pathology report of the pancreas shows: Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), low grade (WHO G1 of 3). Addendum: Ki-67 confirms low grade of pancreatic endocrine tumor (less than 2% Ki-67/MIB-1 index). Chromogranin confirms the endocrine nature of the tumor. The Pre and Post Op Diagnosis is pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor consistent with insulinoma. AJCC Stage as noted on path report: pT1, pNX, pM.

The physician states: The patient has a well-documented insulinoma. Biochemistries confirmed the disease and it is localized in the tail of the pancreas.

The issue with NETs is that pathology report reflects what is seen or what is quantified under the microscope; often, there is a specimen without the accompanying medical history and clinical signs. Many of these NETs are specified on the basis of the hormone, as usually measured in the blood, that is overproduced, something not seen microscopically. All of the islet cell tumors are NETs. The insulinoma in the example above is a well-differentiated NET that is causing insulin to be over-produced. Thus, the diagnoses are not discordant; insulinoma is a more specific NET.

The diagnosis was made in Oct. 2002 by a CT guided fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area. The cytology report says:

a. positive for malignant cells, markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm.

b. It is impossible to tell from this aspiration biopsy whether or not this represents a high grade sarcoma or a high grade carcinoma, but our consensus opinion is that this lesion is a high grade carcinoma.

The combination of soft tissue topography and carcinoma morphology is Impossible by SEER edits. How should we code this?

The example for instruction 6 in the 2007 SEER manual on page 179 (for surgery of primary site) states "code an en bloc removal when the patient has a hysterectomy and an omentectomy." There is no Site-Specific Surgery code for corpus uteri that combines hysterectomy with omentectomy. Is the information about removal of the omentum lost or is it documented under Surgical Procedure of Other Site?

The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.

Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?

The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."

Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?

The final diagnosis from the left mastectomy was multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma (mpT1cN0) with associated intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in situ located between the invasive foci.

Larger 2:00 focus: moderately differentiated ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation (1.4 cm).

Smaller 3:00 focus: moderately to poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma (1.2 cm).

The histologies of the invasive foci should be coded 8523/3 and 8500/3 respectively. To determine the number of primaries, does rule M11 apply which indicates this should be a single primary even though ductal with mucinous differentiation is not in Tables 1 or 2? Or does rule M12 apply because there is a difference in the third digit of histology and thus means this should be reported as a multiple primary case?