SEER Inquiry System - Search

The path report reads: COMMENT: There is multifocal involvement throughout both bowel segments which combined represent a subtotal colectomy procedure. There are at least 11 tumors, all of which are histologically similar. Given the unusual gross appearance, a representative portion of the largest mass (hepatic flexure) was forwarded to _____ for flow cytometric evaluation. There is chronic active colitis in the background suggestive of idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease, specifically ulcerative colitis. However, no dysplasia is seen in multiple random sections of grossly benign large bowel. ADDENDUM from expert gastroenterologist: The carcinomas are poorly differentiated without specific histologic features but are consistent with colon primaries. These findings are consistent with an MLH1-deficient carcinoma. Given the background chronic active colitis consistent with ulcerative colitis, this likely represents colitis-associated neoplasia which can be associated with multifocality.

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)?

According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?

Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize.

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text.

Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090.  On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through.

SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions?

It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual.

Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000.

Consolidation of the case: The operating hospital stated: SOFT TISSUE: Resection: Procedure: Radical resection Other: Pneumonectomy Tumor Site: Right pulmonary artery - They used code C383 (mediastinum NOS).  The consulting hospital stated: Lung, right, pneumonectomy: High grade sarcoma consistent with intimal sarcoma; tumor involves pulmonary artery.  They used code C449 (other soft tissue NOS).  Would C493 (soft tissue thorax) be correct?

At a recent meeting, one registry stated that they apply the following guidelines.

1) If the tumor is described as a hilar mass and there is no mention of LN involvement, Primary Site is coded to hilum (C340)

2) If there is LN involvement along with the mention of a hilar mass, then Primary Site is coded to C349