SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pituitary blastoma was not added to Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) of the 2018 Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules as part of the December 2020 update. This is a new malignant CNS histology for 2021 and later. Not including this histology in Table 3 results in the registrars being required to check another source to correctly code this histology. If this histology cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that diagnosis year clarification be included in the STR?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Left Eye Conjunctiva, biopsy (01/23/2018): Conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe. Is intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe the same as coding 8077/2?

Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date.

For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed?

For example, a patient has a 2.6 cm breast tumor on MRI; a core biopsy measuring 0.7 cm is positive for infiltrating duct carcinoma. Rule #1 states "Use the largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment." However, Rule #9 seems to imply that size from an "incisional biopsy" takes precedence over imaging, even though it is known to be less than the entire tumor in size.

According to the literature, PMH is a low-grade malignant vascular neoplasm of different tissue planes including skin and soft tissue. However, the references also state: PMH is a cutaneous tumor that behaves in an indolent fashion. There is no indication that this was a malignant diagnosis.

12/3/18 Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Superficial squamous epithelium demonstrating hyperkeratosis and fragments of keratin debris, no tumor seen.

Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

NOTE: The submitted immunohistochemical slides were reviewed. Positive and negative controls reacted appropriately. The tumor cells demonstrate immunoreactivity to CK AE1/AE3 and CK7. The CD31 immunoreactivity described in the report cannot be confirmed as only the positive control is submitted for review. The tumor cells are negative for desmin, CD45, CD68, S-100, CD34, SMA, CD20, and HHV8. The proliferative index via Ki-67 is approximately 10%. The morphology (described below) and immunohistochemistry performed are compatible with a pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

12/4/18 Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Foot, left bone lesion, biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

Note: The patient's imaging findings were reviewed in conjunction with this case, revealing numerous lytic lesions of the tibia, fibula, talus, tarsal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones. Additionally, as per the medical record, also reviewed in conjunction with this case, there are lesions of the skin. Thus, an extensive immunohistochemical panel was performed in an attempt to support the morphologic findings in this case, which were morphologically similar to the patient's skin biopsy. The tumor cells demonstrate strong immunoreactivity to pancytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3) and vimentin with moderate immunoreactivity to Fli-1. The tumor cells demonstrate weak immunoreactivity to epithelial membrane antigen. INI-1 is retained. There is focal immunoreactivity to CD31 although this is limited to the edges of the tissue fragments. The tumor cells are negative for HHV-8, CD34, smooth muscle actin, CK8/18, desmin, CD99, and Bcl-2. The combination of morphologic (see below for microscopic description) and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma. Fresh tissue was submitted for karyotype analysis at the time of intraoperative consultation; however, it revealed only a normal appearing male karyotype. Thus, molecular confirmation was sought. The original slides and a paraffin block were submitted for FOSB rearrangement analysis, as pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is known to have recurrent rearrangements with FOSB. Additional immunohistochemistry performed at (FACILITY) demonstrating immunoreactivity for ERG, supporting a vascular origin for this neoplasm. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated that 13% of the cells examined show FOSB rearrangement. While this FISH probe is for investigational purposes, the above findings support the diagnosis of pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?

SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?

The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?

Per the site validation list: https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/sitetype.icdo3.20190618.pdf#search=site%20validation, ill-defined sites (ILL-DEFINED C760-C768) does not include 8070- Squamous cell carcinoma as a valid histology. Therefore when a Cervical Lymph Node and Unknown Primary Tumor of the Head and Neck is submitted with a C760 and 8070/3, it requires an override be set.