SEER Inquiry System - Search

For example, pathology states: Right axillary lymph node, excision: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (see note). COMMENT: FISH studies were performed that were negative for BCL-6, c-Myc/IgH, CCND1/IgH and IgH/BCl-2 gene rearrangement, ruling out the most common forms of double-hit lymphoma. Flow cytometry studies demonstrated positivity for CD45, CD20, HLA-Dr, CD19, CD11c, CD22, CD30, CD38, CD79b, and FMC7. Low positivity was seen for CD5. No reactivity was seen for CD10, CD23, CD25, CD103 or CD123.

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

Pathology report 1/13/15, Histology - Transverse colon resection pathology = Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. The invasive adenocarcinoma arises in a sessile serrated adenoma.

Patient has only a LUL tumor on imaging. The tumor board initially states, possibly a mixed tumor, likely IIIA SCC and/or IIIA or B small cell. Later, the physician refers to it as "Stage III lung cancer, mixed histology with small cell in the lymph node and squamous cell in the LUL mass." Patient has no further workup and has declined therapy.

The patient is diagnosed by bilateral mammograms suspicious for malignancy in both breasts. A biopsy is done on one breast and is positive. The physician states that he will not biopsy the contralateral breast, as the patient has consented to bilateral mastectomy. The patient receives neoadjuvant chemo, follow by bilateral mastectomies. Both breasts are negative for residual cancer, stated as a complete response. Based on "suspicious for malignancy" can we accession two primaries and assume bilateral complete response?

The patient had a mediastinal mass biopsy showing fibrosclerotic tissue with patchy lymphohistiocytic foci and scattered plasma cells, followed by a retroperitoneal mass biopsy showing fibrohistiocytic infiltrate. Erdheim-Chester disease is not reportable per the Heme Database. However, the physician specifically states this is a malignant disorder.

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.

A dementia patient has been managed for a persistent right cheek skin lesion that has been slow growing for about 5 years. It was biopsied in 12/23/15 revealing a Breslow 0.12 mm lentigo maligna melanoma by an outside provider. A larger resection of the lesion on 2/3/16 demonstrated a Breslow 0.30 mm lentigo maligna melanoma with melanoma in situ present at the margins per the available pathology report. There was no statement in the record that any additional treatment was planned or necessary.

Patient healed well from the 2/3/16 procedure but developed a recurrent lesion in May that was biopsied on 5/10/16 by the same outside provider which again reveal lentigo maligna melanoma. 7/5/16 Reexcision at the current facility revealed a Breslow 6.1 mm lentigo maligna melanoma, Clarks level V. This was a cutaneous tumor per the path report and not a subcutaneous nodule. Clinically, the MD called this a , but there was no slide comparison to the previous melanoma.

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.