SEER Inquiry System - Search

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?

Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%.

Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3.

Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML?

Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?

Patient is diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), right breast, receives HT, radiation therapy, and surgery. The same patient is diagnosed with LCIS, left breast one month later--recommend surveillance only (no surgery). Is the HT for the left breast coded at all? I think for COC/NCCN, we do not, but for SEER what would I do? Treatment in the SEER Manual 2018 states, "Code the treatment on each abstract when a patient has multiple primaries and the treatment given for one primary also affects/treats another primary." The example include bladder/prostate and ovarian/cervix. It also states, "Code the treatments only for the site that is affected when a patient has multiple primaries and the treatment affects only one of the primaries." The example includes colon/tonsil. Breast LCIS treatment appears complicated. Per NCCN guidelines, this condition no longer has recommendations, however it appears as though they still state that if a core biopsy is done and is LCIS, follow up should be ultrasound or surgical excision. Nowhere does it state hormone is recommended.

Example: Patient has a left cerebral meningioma that is meningothelial meningioma (9531) and two right-sided cerebral meningiomas: one that is transitional meningioma (9537) and the other that is meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I. If the histology for the mixed tumor is 9534 (angiomatous meningioma), then there are three primaries. If the histology is 9537 (transitional meningioma), then there are two primaries.

Per Table 6, angiomatous meningioma is 9534/0 and transitional meningioma is 9537/0. There is no mixed histology coding rule, or mixed histology meningioma code. There is also no default rule that would instruct registrars to code the numerically higher ICD-O code or to default to a meningioma (NOS) histology code.

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.

In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.

It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.

Example: Mastectomy specimen final diagnosis shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma including: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma (tumor #1, 1 cm, slices 6 and 7) and invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type (tumor #2, 1.2 cm, slices 9 and 10).

Summary Staging outlines, Tumor #1: Histologic Type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma. As well as, Tumor #2: Histologic type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type. Additional findings include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): presently approximately 3.3 cm, spanning slices 10-13.

The behavior of the solid papillary carcinoma component will affect the provisional histology of the first tumor (8523/3) per Rule H17 vs. 8500/3 per Rule H7). Based on the response, we can determine whether this represents a single or multiple primaries (single primary per M13 vs. multiple primaries per M14).

The pathology report reads: Urinary bladder, tumor over right ureteral orifice, biopsy: Urinary bladder mucosa (urothelium) and submucosa (lamina propria), with papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (previously known as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1 of 3), no invasion identified.