SEER Inquiry System - Search

The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?

How many primaries should be reported when a 12/19/14 RUL lung wedge resection shows: 2.0 cm invasive adenocarcinoma (8140/3) and an additional RUL wedge resection during the same procedure shows: multifocal adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) size: 1 mm – 2 mm; followed by a 2/12/15 left upper lobectomy also showing Adenocarcinoma, invasive at several foci, with a prominent bronchioloalveolar (in situ) component….tumor focality: multifocal (10 cm mass, 6 cm mass and numerous smaller foci)?

Procedure: Nephrectomy

Laterality: Left

Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)

Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated

Pattern of growth: Solid

Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm

Local invasion: Present

Renal vein invasion: None

Surgical margins: Negative

Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable

Adrenal gland: Not submitted

Lymph nodes: Not present

Pathologic stage: T1b

There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant.

The pathology report states "Right mediastinal mass: poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation." This is the only histologic confirmation of this lung primary that is collected.

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.

The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, "Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue." This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?

Multilocular clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a specifc histologic type listed in the CAP cancer protocol for kidney, but not in the ICD-O-3 and it is not on the list of specific types of renal cell carcinomas in Table 1 of the kidney equivalent terms and definitions in the MP/H manual. There is a malignant multilocular cystic nephroma 8959 in Table 1, but I can't tell if this the same histology as what is stated in this path report.