SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was diagnosed in September 2022 via excision of a 12 cm pelvic mass with final diagnosis of Myofibroblastoma with sarcomatous transformation.

Diagnosis comment states, “Most of the tumor is composed of conventional features of myofibroblastoma. However, a focal area demonstrates increased cellularity, fascicular growth and increased mitotic activity (up to 11 per 10 hpf), consistent with sarcomatous transformation (morphologically low to intermediate grade).”

Is this sarcomatous transformation describing a malignant transformation from an otherwise benign histology? If so, how should histology be coded in this case?

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

We are aware of the instruction for melanoma cases outlined in SINQ 20230034; however, it is unclear if this should also apply to cutaneous lymphomas and Kaposi sarcomas, or if the intent of the procedure is used for these specific types of skin cases that typically present with multifocal involvement.

Example 1: Patient is diagnosed March 2023 with primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma presenting as pink, tan patches on the trunk. Punch biopsy diagnosed CTCL and treatment was given via narrow band UVB phototherapy.

Example 2: Patient is diagnosed February 2023 with Kaposi sarcoma presenting as widespread violaceous macules, papules, plaques on the torso, bilateral extremities, and abdomen. Punch biopsy diagnosed Kaposi sarcoma.

Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed in January 2023 with final diagnosis of myxoid and epithelioid leiomyosarcoma.

Diagnosis comment states: The tumor is 15 cm per report. It grows in nests and poorly formed interanastomosing trabeculae and cords that are separated by abundant myxoid background. The cells have an epithelioid morphology with eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and very prominent nucleoli. The mitotic activity is overall low ranging from 1 to 3/10 HPFs.

Immunohistochemical stains performed at the outside hospital showed diffuse positivity for SMA, desmin, caldesmon, and PR. They are negative for CD10, claudin-4, calretinin, HBM45, MART1 (rare weakly positive cells), PANCK, and SOX10. This immunohistochemical profile supports a smooth muscle derivation of this neoplasm. As this tumor is extensively myxoid, diagnostic criteria differ from the spindle cell leiomyosarcoma.

Per Solid Tumor Rules Other Sites, Table 16: Uterine Corpus Histologies, Epithelioid Leiomyosarcoma (8891/3) and Myxoid Leiomyosarcoma (8896/3) are both subtypes of Sarcoma, NOS (8800/3).  Per Rule H21, use a combination code when there are multiple specific histologies AND the combination is listed in Table 2 OR there are coding instructions for the combination in the applicable histology Tables 3-21 OR you receive a combination code from Ask A SEER Registrar.  Since there is no combination listed in Table 2 and there is no instruction for the combination in Table 16, how should the histology be coded for this tumor?

Patient had a mandibular mucosal lesion resected in June of 2023, with a diagnosis of “atypical squamous proliferation” and case was forwarded to an expert in oral pathology for best classification. Subsequent slide review final diagnosis was “moderate to severe squamous dysplasia.” That slide review diagnosis goes on to state “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.”

Currently there is no ICD-O code for severe squamous dysplasia, however it is unclear if this terminology is equivalent to high grade squamous dysplasia (histology code 8077/2).

Patient had a right thyroid lobectomy on 12/2022, with initial diagnosis of “thyroid carcinoma pending expert consultation for definitive classification.”  The slide review documented in the addendum shows a final diagnosis of “Angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm, see comment.”  The subsequent comment states, “I would classify this lesion as an angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma.”  The comment goes on to state, “Additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin. The diagnosis remains unchanged.”

1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%?

2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used?  For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions?

The resection pathology report final diagnosis indicates this is both mixed mucinous and non-mucinous with a lepidic predominant component. The pathologist notes this is “Lepidic: 75%. Acinar: 25%.”  The percentage of the mucinous component is not documented.

Rule H1, Note 1, states “When mucinous carcinoma is mixed with another histology, such as adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, code mucinous ONLY when mucinous is documented to be greater than 50% of the tumor.” While mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous carcinoma is included in Table 2 (Combination/Mixed Histology Codes) without a required percentage, it is unclear whether one should move past Rule H7 and use Rule H8 to code this combination histology code. Rule H7 would instruct one to code the histology to lepidic adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant) based on the percentage of the lepidic component in the tumor. However, this does not address the mixed mucinous and non-mucinous diagnosis. Which H Rule and histology apply to this case?

Can you provide clarification on Rectum primary surgical code 40 Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis)? Would this be code 30 or 40 due to the colorectal anastomosis? 

In the examples below, are these a single or multiple primaries?

Example 1:

Tumor 1:  C509/left breast, 8520/2 (in situ lobular carcinoma), dx date-01/10/2019

Tumor 2:  C509/ left breast, 8500/3 (carcinoma NST), dx date-08/19/2021

Example 2:

Tumor 1:  C509, right breast, 8520/2, dx date 06/26/2014

Tumor 2:  C508, right breast, 8500/3, dx date-05/23/2019

There seems to be some conflicting info on this. In the 2020 Breast Rules there was a note add to the revision history. “M10 Same behavior requirement re-added.” Which is not in the rules now, nor was it noted to the revision changes in the last two change logs.

Inquiry 20200070 would seem to indicate that this is multiple primaries, but that contrasts with 20230010 which would seem to indicate a single primary, and an ASK A SEER Registrar question that we received a response to. I don’t see a scenario where rule M17, an invasive tumor DX more than 60 days after an in situ tumor would come into play.

If behavior no longer applies to rule M10, at what point did that change get made? Please advise.