SEER Inquiry System - Search

8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone.

Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?

The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the "excisional biopsy" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed.

In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?

The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit?

Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?

In September 2009 the patient was diagnosed with seminoma, classical type, following an orchiectomy. Testicular mass recurrence in 2014 was treated with chemotherapy.

Then in April 2015 a retroperitoneal dissection of a peri-aortic LN was positive for mixed germ cell tumor with somatic type malignancy (rhabdomyosarcoma) involving 1/11 nodes. Path Comment: major component of tumor is teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma represents <5% of mass.

Now in October 2016, the patient has a retroperitoneal mass biopsy positive for spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcomatous differentiation. The comment section of the pathology report states, "Given the history of a germ cell tumor w/ rhadbomosarcomatous component, the findings are consistent with a recurrence of rhabdomyosarcomatous component of germ cell tumor."

Can a seminoma transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (see SINQ 20140082 - testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy)?

A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?

This diagnosis is not listed in the ICD-O-3 though it is listed as code 9509/1 for this specific tumor in the 2007 WHO classification of Tumours of Central Nervous System. (See link:  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4/fulltext.html.)