SEER Inquiry System - Search

The Histology Coding Instructions give priority to the Final Diagnosis over the CAP protocol. However, when pathology reports are formatted using the CAP protocol, the presence of in situ carcinoma is generally only mentioned in the CAP protocol. Can the presence of in situ tumor mentioned only in the CAP protocol be used to apply rule H7 (Single Tumor: Invasive and In Situ Components Module)? Or are the rules in the Single Tumor: Invasive Only module used?

Example: Final diagnosis is invasive ductal carcinoma. CAP protocol mentions,

Example: Initial CT scan impression is large appendiceal mucocele with a moderate amount of right-sided abdominal ascites. Faint mural enhancement suggesting an underlying appendiceal neoplasm (mucinous adenoma or adenocarcinoma).

Appendectomy follows two days later with final diagnosis of high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, see comment. Histologic grade: Grade G2 of 4 (based on the CAP protocol) . . . Ascites fluid (ThinPrep(r) and cell block preparations): Mucin, fragments of debris, and macrophages. No diagnostic neoplastic cells are identified . . . Pathologic stage: pT4a, pNX, pM1a (AJCC 8th ed).

Diagnosis Comment states, We feel that there are areas of this tumor where the cytologic atypia is beyond what one would expect in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. While mitotic figures are not strikingly increased, there are focal nuclear changes that would support classification of this tumor as high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.

Approximately two weeks later the patient has an Oncology assessment stating new diagnosis of T4a, NX, M1a, Stage IVA high-grade mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix with mucinous ascites. Patient has had an appendectomy but no further surgery so far. However, anecdotally, the best reported case series has been with surgical debulking followed by HIPEC chemotherapy In that instance I have recommended surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Is this a reportable malignancy? If so, what is the best histology for the diagnosis?

We noticed this term was added to the most recent version of the Heme Database (DB) as an alternate name for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma; however we do not recall being notified that this was a new reportable term for code 9823 and the term was not included in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology updates. The Definition in the Heme DB for Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic leukemia (CLL/SLL) includes information that the term was added in the 2016 WHO revision, thus would be reportable back to 2016, is that correct? In addition, the Definition seems to be describing it as a precursor condition to CLL and may never actually evolve into CLL, so it is unclear if this term should really be reportable.

Example: 09/08/2016 Onc Note: A/P: monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL): I reviewed with him the results of the bone marrow biopsy. Interestingly, there is no evidence of abnormal plasma cell population by flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry. Nevertheless, flow cytometry does demonstrate a very small population of abnormal and monoclonal B-cell lymphocyte population with immunophenotype consistent with CLL/SLL. Given the very low number of the abnormal B cells, this can be categorized as monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). I recommend surveillance visit in one year.

9/12/2017 Onc note: A/P: Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL) and IgM MGUS. No symptoms concerning for active disease or progression. Explained that MBL is a very indolent process. Patients with CLL-phenotype MBL progress to CLL at a rate of ~1-2 percent per year. Follow-up in 1 year. Is this case reportable?

Table 6 (Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids) in the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions lists both squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative as subtypes/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (the NOS histology, 8070). Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative are also listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 update table.

Previous clarification from the standard setters regarding the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table indicated that histology codes 8085 and 8086 (HPV-positive and HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma, respectively) included p16+ and p16- squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. Presumably, this clarification was made because p16 is a surrogate marker for HPV, and capturing whether a tumor is HPV-related or not has implications for staging for 2018 and later diagnoses. However, this clarification was not added to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table via errata, nor do the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions or Histology Coding Rules address this.

Is a diagnosis of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive (8085)? If so, will this clarification be added to the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules?

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)?

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?