SEER Inquiry System - Search

Histologic Type: HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. Overall, the morphology, immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing results support the diagnosis of an HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma. This entity has been described in the sinonasal region, where it behaves more indolently than its other salivary gland carcinoma counterparts (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma), with local recurrence but rare metastases.

In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).

We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).

An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.

Path report reads: 7/15/2019 A. Endometrium, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade. B. Endometrial polyp, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade.

If coded to 8461/3, according to AJCC, this would not be an ideal code (since it is outdated). Also, endometrium is not included in the suggested site codes for 8461/3 according to the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 update.

Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation).

The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?

It is unclear if code 300 is appropriate, since technically the fissure is comprised of pleura, involvement of the fissure appears to imply a tumor that is no longer localized.

An argument could be made for code 400, since the term traverses could be interpreted as crossing into adjacent lobe, however the lower lobe is not mentioned in this scan.

SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?

SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?

For example, chemotherapy and immunotherapy administered first, followed by surgery, then immunotherapy and hormone therapy after surgery. Or is code 4 used for two administrations of chemotherapy before surgery and two more courses after surgery?

Rule M4 does not seem to apply because Note 1 defines clinically disease free to mean no evidence of recurrence in the same lung on follow-up. Patient had been disease free in the left lung after 09/2014 diagnosis. The 04/2019 diagnosis was in a different lung than the 4/2016 diagnosis.

The next applicable rule is either M11 or M14 depending on how we should compare the new 2019 tumor: to the most recent prior tumor in 2016 or to both prior tumors.