SEER Inquiry System - Search

Mantle cell lymphoma diagnosed in 1997 which was treated with chemotherapy. Now in 2014 a 'relapse' of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They do a biopsy of the pericardium, which is called low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. See comment. The comment says histochemical stains are reviewed and findings are consistent with involvement by a CD5 positive low grade B cell lymphoma. Lack of cyclin D1 and SOX-11 positivity as well as negative IGH-CCND1 FISH analysis essentially rule out mantle cell lymphoma. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features of this disorder are not specific for any lymphoma subtype. The differential includes CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. If this is coded NHL, NOS (9591) it is the same primary as seq. 1 and would not be abstracted.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

8/1/10 CYSTOSCOPY -- MULTIPLE BLADDER TUMORS INVOLVING POSTERIOR WALL, DOME & BLADDER NECK AREA. LARGEST WOULD BE MORE THAN 5 CM IN SIZE. 8/17/10 path -- BLADDER TUMORS:PAPILLARY TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA OF urinary bladder, GRADE III. ONE FRAGMENT OF TISSUE SHOWS NECROTIC CHANGE WITH APPARENT TRANSFORMATION TO A HIGH GRADE SARCOMATOID VARIANT W ITH EXTENSIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION & FOCAL AREA SUGGESTIVE OF ANGIOLYMPHATIC INVASION NOTED. MAJORITY OF TUMOR APPEARS CONFINED TO MUCOSAL SURFACE W ITH NO OTHER AREAS OF DEFINITIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION FOUND.

The patient was diagnosed with GE junction signet ring adenocarcinoma (8490/3) in 5/2012, treated with radiation. GE junction biopsy on 9/20/2012 showed residual signet ring carcinoma. Subsequent biopsies on 7/8/2013 showed GE junction biopsy of invasive adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell type along with “Esophagus, distal and GE junction biopsies” (site not further clarified in available documentation) with Goblet cell carcinoma. The histology code for the goblet cell carcinoma is needed to determine the number of primaries.

Patient has 2 tumors in the left ureter; one is transitional cell (8120) and one is papillary transitional cell (8130). Rule M6 says BLADDER tumors with any combination of the following histologies ... are a single primary. But this is not a bladder case. Rule M8 says urothelial tumors in 2 or more of the following sites are a single primary... but this is not in 2 or more sites. Rule M9 then says histologies different at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd digit are separate primaries. That makes this 2 primaries, but I do not think this should be 2 primaries.