SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case.

However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case.

Left frontal mass biopsy diagnosis comment states: Given the synaptophysin and patchy CD34 staining of these cells, the possibility of ganglioglioma and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma is raised. Astroblastoma and ependymoma were considered given the perivascular pseudorosettes, however GFAP staining is quite limited against these tumors. Reticulin stain shows limited perivascular reticulin staining however. Nevertheless, the necrosis, mitotic activity and elevated mitotic activity would point to a malignant neoplasm. Given the neural and limited GFAP staining, a generic classification of neuroglial is provided.

This is the only available information. Further clarification or discussion with the physician or pathologist is not possible. Therefore, is this diagnosis of neuroglial tumor equivalent to that described in SINQ 20091037?

According to the literature, CIC gene rearrangement sarcomas in young patients are soft tissue sarcomas with an aggressive clinical course and may have previously been grouped under the Ewing-like family of tumors or as undifferentiated round cell sarcomas. There is currently no guideline in the solid tumor rules for coding a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma. However, coding the histology to 8800 (sarcoma, NOS) seems unlikely to capture the more aggressive nature of these tumors. Can a more specific histology be coded?

Patient has a history of breast cancer and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), both treated with chemotherapy and radiation.

On 6/26/19, bone marrow biopsy: MDS with excess blasts-2 (18% dysplastic blasts) in a normocellular marrow (overall 40% cellularity) with trilineage dysplasia. Comment: least myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2. However, an early/evolving AML cannot be completely excluded. The findings likely represent therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.

MD note on 7/15/19: Diagnosis: MDS, high grade borderline AML with complex karyotype secondary disease. Patient has high grade MDS which is bordering on AML transformation with 20% blasts by IHC and areas higher than this. This is likely secondary to the treatment she has received for her other cancers particularly pelvic radiation for her DLBCL. Given her very high IPSS score, it is likely she will eventually develop AML. No treatment given.

On 7/15/19, bone marrow biopsy: Persistent acute leukemia in a marrow with trilineage dyspoiesis and 23% blasts.

The physicians do not use the Lugano system as we are instructed to stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) as lymphomas. I had always been instructed that this qualifies as "bone marrow involvement," or "diffuse disease," and therefore is a Stage IV. Our experts advise that there is not enough information to code it to bone marrow, but do not elaborate as to whether you can actually code Extent of Disease (EOD), SEER Summary Stage, and AJCC Staging?

The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable?

Example: Left breast total mastectomy final diagnosis is incidental microscopic findings suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. The diagnosis comment states: The left breast mastectomy shows mildly atypical cells within the nipple epidermis which are suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. Additional sampling of the left breast was performed, and no evidence of atypical hyperplasia, in situ carcinoma, or invasive carcinoma within the left breast tissue was identified.

Would this case be non-reportable using rationale similar to an early/evolving melanoma per SINQ 20180029?

Example 1: Operative report states the surgery is a right breast simple mastectomy. There is no lymph node removal documented or attempted; however, a single incidental intramammary node is found in the final pathology results. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

CAnswer Forum states to code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery as 0 (No regional lymph nodes removed), see Scope LN surgery, incidental LN found on path, Breast.

However, SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction states: Code the removal of intra-organ lymph nodes in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. Example: Local excision of breast cancer. Specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node. Assign code 4 (1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed).

The STORE 2018 Manual does not provide instruction for incidental nodes specifically, but does appear to be focused on capturing procedural intent.

Example 2: Patient has bilateral breast primaries. Operative report states the surgery is bilateral simple/skin-sparing mastectomies with bilateral sentinel node biopsies and immediate reconstruction. However, pathology shows that the left breast specimens are labeled: (a) Left breast mastectomy, (b) Left sentinel lymph node biopsy, (c) Additional left lymph nodes biopsy, and (d) Left axillary contents biopsy. The total nodes removed for this case are: 2/2 positive SLN, 0/1 positive intramammary nodes, 1/1 positive additional lymph node, and 3/3 positive axillary contents nodes. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

Rule PH28 confirms the more specific histologies are ignored if this is truly a low grade B-cell lymphoma (i.e., non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS) since both MALT lymphoma and LPL are more specific types of low grade B-cell lymphomas. This leaves only a diagnosis of low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation to consider.

SINQ 20130033 states a low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation should be coded as 9680/3 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)). However, DLBCL is a high grade B-cell lymphoma, not a low grade B-cell lymphoma.

If the pathologist classifies this as a non-specific low grade B-cell lymphoma, and clarifies that this may represent a more specific type of low grade B-cell lymphoma (MALT lymphoma or LPL), should the histology be coded to a high-grade lymphoma (DLBCL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS?

IMPRESSION/PLAN: Patient is a previously healthy middle aged woman with a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). We will proceed with a neoadjuvant course of radiation and concurrent chemotherapy (5-FU) to maximize local regional control and survival, and hopefully facilitate a sphincter-sparing resection in the future. The primary tumor and the pelvic nodes at risk will receive 4500 cGy delivered over 25 treatments. The primary tumor will subsequently receive an additional 1080 cGy delivered over 5 treatments, for a cumulative dose of 580 cGy.

PATHOLOGY: Adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). The patient is referred by (dr) for a neoadjuvant course of chemoradiotherapy.

HPI: Patient presented recently with rectal bleeding and a change in bowel habits. Colonoscopy revealed an ulcerated mass located 4.0 cm above the anal verge. A biopsy was positive for invasive well-differentiated adenocarcinoma that arose from a tubular adenoma. A staging work-up demonstrated no evidence of metastatic disease.