SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case.

Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation.

CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct?

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

The note in the Urinary Terms and Definition states, Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. While it is true that both Ta and Tis are technically noninvasive, the AJCC defines Ta specifically for, A pathologist's use of Ta does indicate the noninvasive carcinoma did arise from a papillary tumor. However, not all pathologists use terminology that, following the Urinary Solid Tumor Histology Coding Rules, will result in a histology coded to 8130, despite an AJCC-defined Ta (noninvasive papillary carcinoma) tumor having been diagnosed because the tumor projected from the wall on a stalk.

In our region a number of pathologists provide the following types of diagnosis.

Histologic type: Noninvasive.

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): High-grade.

Tumor configuration: Papillary.

The pathologist and/or physician may then stage this as Ta. How is the histology coded for these cases if the H Rules do not allow one to code the papillary and noninvasive Ta disease as not equivalent to noninvasive papillary carcinoma?

Flat (in situ) urothelial carcinoma has an increased risk of invasive disease compared to the noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. Will there be inconsistencies or a resulting impact to analysis of truly flat/in situ urothelial carcinoma vs. papillary urothelial carcinomas if the papillary tumors are not being coded as such?

Pathology reads: 1. FNA left groin lymph node tissue (smears and cell block): B-cell lymphoma, low grade. The concurrent flow cytometry (3-FC-16-288) identifies a monoclonal B cell population with immunophenotype of CD10++, CD5-, CD23-, CD20++ and unusual CD19-. Overall findings favor follicular lymphoma. FNA Specimen Adequacy: Evaluation for specimen adequacy: Immediate cytology smear review for specimen adequacy was performed at the time of the FNA procedure by pathologist. Smears reviewed from 2 passes in one reading. The specimen was adequate cytological evaluation. Surg Path Final Report Special Studies Immunohistochemistry (CD45, MCK, CD20, CD3, CD10, Bcl6, MUM1 \T\ Ki67) was performed on block 1A to confirm the diagnosis. All controls show appropriate reaction. Lymphoma cells are positive for CD45, CD20, CD10 and weakly positive for bcl6(+) and MUM1(+/-), and negative for MCK. CD3 highlights few T lymphocytes. Ki67 labeling index is low, less than 10%. The immunoprofile supports above diagnosis. Chromosomal study for t(14;18) translocation will be performed, and an addendum report will follow. Flow Final Report Comment: The lymphoma appears to be derived from germinal centre B cells. Together with the findings from the lymph node biopsy (3-FN16-416), follicular lymphoma is favored. However, negative CD19 and CD22 are unusual.

5/15/17 Duodenal bulb, biopsy: Fragments of duodenal mucosa with well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), extending to the edge of specimen and peptic duodenitis in the submitted tissue. No significant intraepithelial lymphocytosis.

10/27/2017 partial nephrectomy final path diagnosis: renal oncocytic neoplasm, favor hybrid oncocytic tumor. Comment: