SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

Is the statement "with __ features" indicative of a specific type of renal cell carcinoma (that is not represented by a specific histology code) or a second histologic type? Per ICD-O, "malignant rhabdoid tumor" is coded 8963/3. "Rhabdoid" is not listed in Table 1 in the MP/H rules as a specific type of renal cell carcinoma.

On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."

SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?

Per SINQ 20021106, for tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, a clinical diagnosis of metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease was to be coded to histology 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. "Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma."

Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free.

In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade.

On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue.

Is this a new renal pelvis primary?

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?