SEER Inquiry System - Search

The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.

The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.

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.

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?

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

Examples

Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report

Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

Rule PH28 confirms the more specific histologies are ignored if this is truly a low grade B-cell lymphoma (i.e., non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS) since both MALT lymphoma and LPL are more specific types of low grade B-cell lymphomas. This leaves only a diagnosis of low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation to consider.

SINQ 20130033 states a low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation should be coded as 9680/3 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)). However, DLBCL is a high grade B-cell lymphoma, not a low grade B-cell lymphoma.

If the pathologist classifies this as a non-specific low grade B-cell lymphoma, and clarifies that this may represent a more specific type of low grade B-cell lymphoma (MALT lymphoma or LPL), should the histology be coded to a high-grade lymphoma (DLBCL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS?

We previously downloaded the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update tables which included the note, not reportable for 2018, for both of these terms (with an updated histology 8071/2). SINQ 20180020 confirms differentiated penile and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia are NOT reportable for 2018 (as does 20160069). However, when looking at the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update table today, the not reportable for 2018 comment has been removed and it appears these two terms are reportable. Which is correct?

The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?