SEER Inquiry System - Search

March 2017 lung biopsy showing metastatic melanoma. Subsequent workup shows imaging with additional metastatic involvement of multiple bone sites but no primary tumor is identified. Chemotherapy is started in May 2017.

July 2017 biopsy of right lower quadrant mass has a final diagnosis of ganglioneuroblastoma and pathologist's comment states I believe that this may represent transdifferentiation of metastatic melanoma. Later, partial colectomy of transverse colon Gross Description indicates this was centered in the mesentery.

A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different.

The right breast ultrasound shows a 1.4 cm mass at 8 o'clock and a separate mass .6 cm at 7 o'clock (site code for both C50.5). Pathology report: Right 8 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2), right 7 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2). Then, another facility performs a right breast lumpectomy (operative note not available). Outside Facility: Right breast lumpectomy pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma .6cm (8500/3) multifocal DCIS .5cm greatest dimension tumor site right breast NOS.

Should we use Rule M12-Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant. Note: Each row in the table is a distinctly different histology. So would this be two primaries C50.5 (8504/2) and C50.9 (8500/3)?

Patient had a breast excision that proved a single tumor with no evidence of invasive carcinoma. The final diagnosis stated: Size (extent) of EPC DCIS: Spanning approximately 1.3 cm. The pathologist did not describe separate foci of DCIS; only one tumor comprised of both encapsulated papillary carcinoma and DCIS. The encapsulated papillary carcinoma was not described as invasive. The pathology noted: This case is best classified as EPC conventional DCIS. No conventional stromal invasion is identified. Solid Tumor Rule M2 confirms a single tumor is a single primary.

However, there does not appear to be an H Rule that instructs how to code histology. The Single Tumor: In Situ Only module, has only three H Rules and none of them apply to this case. The patient does not have Paget disease (H1), does not have a single histology (H2, there are multiple histologies present as DCIS and EPC are listed on different rows in Table 3) and does not have DCIS and LCIS (H3). How does one arrive at the correct histology for this case?

An endometrial cancer was diagnosed in 2018. The endometrial biopsy showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (MMMT/Carcinosarcoma). The total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy showed Endometrial Carcinosarcoma (50% serous carcinoma, 50% high grade sarcoma with rhabdomyoblastic differentiation) with invasion of 100% of the myometrium and involvement of the uterine serosa. I am not finding this in the Solid Tumor Rules or the site-specific ICD-O-3 code lists.

Immunostain results of the malignant cells show strong staining with p63 and negative staining with TTF-1 and Napsin. Rare cells stain with CK7. Findings are most compatible with squamous cell carcinoma. The patient is treated as if he has squamous cell carcinoma. The new histology coding rules say you cannot use ambiguous terms which modify the histology to code the histology. So is this 8010/3?

There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries?