SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?

Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.

Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.

Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.

The article I read (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28984674) makes the distinction between mesophrenic adenocarcinoma and mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma. The authors propose the term mesonephric-like Mullerian adenocarcinoma. So would this be coded as Mullerian adenocarcinoma?

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?

This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor.

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?

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.

The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.