SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

The patient was diagnosed with an EBV-positive plasmablastic lymphoma involving the left testis on radical orchiectomy in April 2019.

In September 2019, a plasmacytoma was found on a right mandibular mass biopsy. Imaging at that time revealed diffuse disease involving the thoracic spine and sinus involvement. The patient then underwent a resection of the T8 spinal/epidural tumor that also proved plasmacytoma.

Subsequently, the right mandibular mass and testis slides were reviewed (at an outside facility) and both were stated to be, The T8/epidural tumor pathology was not reviewed, so it is unclear if this is also assumed to be the same disease process as the right mandibular mass or still a separate, solitary plasmacytoma.

Additionally, some chart notes indicate the patient has plasmablastic lymphoma with a secondary diagnosis of plasmacytoma, while other chart notes state this is stage IV plasmablastic lymphoma involving all documented sites. Although the plasmablastic lymphoma and at least the plasmacytoma of T8 have different ICD-O-3 histology codes, the physicians do seem to be treating this as a single disease process.

There are four invasive tumors in the right lung:

Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma in the right lower lobe (8012/3, C343);

Adenocarcinoma, acinar-predominant in the right lower lobe (8551/3, C343) that was 0.7 cm in size and limited to the lung;

Mucinous adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe (8253/3, C341) that was 0.9 cm and limited to the lung;

Adenocarcinoma, NOS also in the right upper lobe (8140/3, C341) that was 1 cm and limited to the lung.

The Lung M Rules confirm the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma is a separate primary from the three adenocarcinoma tumors (Rule M8). The acinar adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma tumors are separate primaries (Rule M6). The adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor is the same primary as both the acinar and mucinous are adenocarcinomas (Rule M7).

How is Primary Site coded for both the acinar and mucinous adenocarcinomas if they represent multiple tumors reported as a single primary (when compared to the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor)?

Should the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor also be included when coding EOD Primary Tumor for both the right lower lobe acinar adenocarcinoma and right upper lobe mucinous adenocarcinoma primaries? Further follow-up with the physician is not possible.

We received an edit error in SEER*DMS on the following site/histology (Orbit, NOS (C696)/9699/3) that involved an incorrect staging code being assigned to SS2018. The staging language is identical in AJCC, EOD and SS2018. SEER*RSA notes that SS2018 should be coded distant, but in the SS2018 manual, this language is noted Regional. Staging language is: Orbital adnexal lymphoma AND extraorbital lymphoma extending beyond the orbit to adjacent structures--Bone, Brain, Maxillofacial sinuses

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.

2020 Diagnosis: Patient had a right hemicolectomy showing adenocarcinoma of cecum, tumor extends into proximal portion of attached vermiform appendix. Tumor invades through muscularis propria into pericolorectal tissues (NOS). Regional lymph nodes: 06/39. Primary Tumor EOD: Where does the appendix involvement come into coding or will this be based on the pericolorectal tissue (NOS) invasion? What is my Summary Stage? I know it is at least 3 due to regional ln involvement, but the appendix involvement is making me question 3 vs 4.

Recognizing the addition of the behavior requirement into this rule is an attempt to stop non-synchronous ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinomas from being accessioned as a single primary (SINQ 20200022), the issue with using behavior rather than timing is that now, synchronous separate/non-contiguous tumors that are invasive carcinoma NST (8500/3) and lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) (or vice versa) are separate primaries per M14.

Lobular and carcinoma, NST are separate rows in Table 3, so we cannot stop at M10 and code the mixed histology because there are two separate histologies with different behaviors. There is no rule that states we can just ignore the in situ tumors for the purpose of applying the M Rules. (We are instructed to ignore the in situ when coding histology only in certain circumstances.) The problem with Rule M10 appears to be related to timing.

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

There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for a which resulted in abstractors assigning the malignant astrocytoma, NOS code. These lesions were previously called but we are seeing the new terminology more frequently.

Insulinoma, NOS is reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the diagnosis of insulinoma is most frequently made with clinical correlation of the patient's clinical syndrome and serum hormone levels. Despite a pathological diagnosis of NET, this will clinically be stated as insulinoma based on the functional type of tumor. At the largest facility in our area, all pathology reports with a diagnosis of insulinoma over the last year only provide a pathological Final Diagnosis of NET (either G1 or G2), but elsewhere specify, Functional Type: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, functional. Correlation with Clinical Syndrome and Elevated Serum Levels of Hormone Product: Insulin-producing (Insulinoma).

For 2021 and later, it seems this should be accessioned as insulinoma (8151/3), but one cannot arrive at that histology using the current Other Sites (MP/H) H Rules. Following the existing rules, one would code the histology to NET, G1 or NET, G2 (8240 or 8249) per Rule H6. There are technically two specific histologies to consider: NET (either 8240 or 8249) and insulinoma, NOS (8151). Following the H Rules, Rule H6 instructs one to code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8240 or 8249).

Coding this histology to NET (8240 or 8249) does not seem to reflect the most accurate classification of this tumor, but applying the current rules, this is the only histology that can be coded. There is no current guideline in the Other Sites schema or the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines instructing us to ignore the pathological diagnosis of a NET for these tumors (even though insulinomas are NETs). The only SINQ that currently exists (SINQ 20150019) states the histology can be coded as either a NET or an insulinoma in these cases. How are registrars to consistently code histology for these tumors without a rule clarification?

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

Should histology be coded as paraganglioma, NOS (8680/3) or as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) for a diagnosis of paraganglioma in the bladder? Does the pathologist have to specifically diagnose the tumor as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS to use histology code 8693/3? Or, does any diagnosis of paraganglioma (NOS) arising outside of the adrenal gland, carotid body, middle ear, or aortic body (the specified sites for other types of paragangliomas) qualify as an extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS?

The ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines (Tables 6 and 7) provide an associated site of C755 for histology 8680/3 (paraganglioma, NOS), but no associated site code is provided for histology 8693/3 (extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS). If the preferred site for paraganglioma, NOS is the paraganglia, would a paraganglioma in the bladder be an extra-adrenal paraganglioma?

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