SEER Inquiry System - Search

Unlike most other sites, there is no specific code for a radical surgical procedure of a skin primary. In this case, the patient was diagnosed with a sebaceous cell carcinoma of the lower eyelid skin by punch biopsy. The tumor was large and an orbital exenteration was planned. Despite the extensive surgery performed, skin margins were less than 1 cm. Is an orbital exenteration a "major amputation" (code 60) in this case? Given that the margins were not greater than 1 cm, codes 45 - 47 (which includes a minor (local) amputation) don't seem to apply. However, if this procedure cannot be classified as "minor amputation" then doesn't it seem overkill to refer to the procedure as a "major amputation"?

An alternative would be to code Surgery of Primary Site to 32 for the skin resection (punch biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion, margins less than 1 cm) and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 (non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites) to record the removal of the globe and orbit as part of the orbital exenteration. Which is correct?

The patient underwent a polypectomy. The endoscopy report noted the "single piece polypectomy" only partially removed the polyp/mass as the remainder of the mass was more fixed to the wall. The margins were not noted on the pathology report, but were presumably positive given the endoscopy report and the subsequent low anterior resection (LAR) that proved macroscopic residual tumor. Should the date of the polypectomy be recorded in Date of First Surgical Procedure field? Or would the date of the subsequent LAR be recorded since macroscopic residual tumor was present following polypectomy?

Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

Does the Other Sites MP/H Rule H17 apply in this case, which results in coding the higher histology 8805/3 (undifferentiated sarcoma)? Or does the "undifferentiated" statement only refer to grade, which results in coding histology to 8802/3 (pleomorphic sarcoma)?

8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone.

1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS

6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma

8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ

2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma

Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?

The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: 

-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template). 

-Surgical margins free of tumor.

Kidney, right, nephrectomy:

Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)

Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified

Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)

Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm

Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney

Focality: Multifocal

Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm

Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4

Microscopic extent of tumor:

Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified

Renal sinus invasion: Not identified

Other: N/A

Renal vein involvement: Not identified

Adrenal gland present: No

Involved by tumor: N/A

Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A

Cancer at resection margin: Not identified

Location(s): N/A

Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells

Hilar lymph nodes present: No

Number of involved/number present: N/A

"Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence."

The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014.