SEER Inquiry System - Search

1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of

Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?

2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of

Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?

3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.

Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.

Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?

The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.

The article I read (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28984674) makes the distinction between mesophrenic adenocarcinoma and mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma. The authors propose the term mesonephric-like Mullerian adenocarcinoma. So would this be coded as Mullerian adenocarcinoma?

Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.

This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.

From a number of definitions reviewed, it seems unclear if it's part of the appendix or the cecum of the colon. For example: The cecum is usually located in the right iliac fossa. In the pole of the cecum, there is often the appearance of fusion of the three teniae coli around the appendix, giving rise to the tri-radiate fold (Mercedes Benz sign), but the anatomy can be variable. The most reliable landmarks of the cecum are the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve. The appendiceal orifice is usually an unimpressive slit, often crescentic in shape. The ileocecal valve is made up of the superior and inferior lips (usually not seen en face) and is the gateway leading into the terminal ileum. It is located on the prominent ileocecal fold encircling the cecum, between 3 and 5 cm distal to the cecal pole. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113701730)

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?