SEER Inquiry System - Search

The physician consult in this case further specifies that the large granular lymphocyte disorder represents an autoimmune disease of autoimmune T-cell mediated mechanism. Is this a reportable diagnosis?

Sarcomotoid (8318) is listed as a specific renal cell subtype in the MP/H manual, but it is not listed as a renal cell subtype in the most recent WHO blue book for Urinary Organs. We are wondering if sarcomatoid features, as listed in the CAP protocol format in the following example, should be ignored when coding histology?

Left kidney, radical nephrectomy:

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma, with the following features:

Tumor size: 8.5 X 6 cm.

Tumor focality: Unifocal.

Macroscopic extent of tumor: Tumor limited to kidney.

Sarcomatoid features: Present (<20% of tumor shows sarcomatoid features).

Histologic grade: G4.

Microscopic tumor extension: Tumor limited to kidney.

Margins: All margins negative for invasive carcinoma.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

The pathologist noted this was a challenging brain neoplasm that did not easily fit into a specific WHO diagnostic classification. Multiple differential diagnoses were given including pilomyxoid astrocytoma, ganglioglioma and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET), but there were no definitive features characteristic of any of these tumors. In the Comment section following the Final Diagnosis, it further states: "In summary, the tumor appears to be a difficult to classify non-infiltrating glial/glioneuronal neoplasm without definitive high-grade features."

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.

Pathology report microscopic description: The tumor is a meningothelial neoplasm (EMA+; BCL-2 and CD34 negative) with prominent collagen deposition. Necrosis and prominent nucleoli are present; no other atypical features are seen. Mitoses are present, up to 2 per 10 high-powered fields. Final Diagnosis: Dura, bicoronal craniotomy (specimen A): Meningioma with atypical features.

There is no rule in benign brain and CNS section of Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) Rules stating to code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is (something less specific, i.e., adenocarcinoma). This rule is in other site chapters of MP/H but appears missing in the benign brain and CNS section.

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

4/18/17 Right ovary and fallopian tube, salpingo-oophorectomy: mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion; greatest dimension 24.5 cm. Left fallopian tube and ovary, salpingo-oophorectomy: Benign ovary with multiple benign Mullerian inclusions. Benign fallopian tube with multiple paratubal cysts. Per pathology: pT1a pNx.

Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?

In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?

Total thyroidectomy Final Diagnosis: Papillary carcinoma, classical type, with papillary and follicular architecture.

The 2007 MP/H rules state that the term architecture is reserved for coding subtype of in situ primaries only. However, SINQ 20130165 appears to indicate this should be coded for invasive thyroid subtypes as well. Can you confirm the addition of the term architecture for determining an invasive histologic subtype for thyroid?