SEER Inquiry System - Search

A physician stated the patient likely had secondary polycythemia vera due to cardiac and pulmonary conditions but that a polycythemia vera could not be ruled out. A JAK2 was ordered that was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. The patient was treated with hydrea.

According to SEER SINQ 20120049, secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. However, in this case, the patient was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. Therefore, is this reportable? We looked for guidance in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and found it confusing that secondary polycythemia vera was not mentioned or discussed under polycythemia vera in the database. The only thing we could find was secondary polycythemia NOS that was discussed under polycythemia.

In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach?

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?

Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

HL-7 e-path report, Final Diagnosis

High normocellular marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis, multilineage dyspoiesis, compatible with MDS-MLD and involvement by plasma cell neoplasm/myeloma, IgA kappa positive, approximately 20-25% of total cellularity present. See comment.

Comments

Correlation with other relevant laboratory (amount and type of serum and urine paraprotein levels, renal function tests, serum calcium level, and anemia) and radiologic (lytic bone lesions) findings is recommended for complete interpretation.  Dyspoiesis of all lineages is seen and the findings are compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-MLD), assuming that other possible causes are excluded. Correlation with cytogenetic and molecular studies is recommended for complete characterization

ICD-O-3.2 lists microscopic thymoma as benign (8580/0) and thymoma, type A as malignant (8581/3).

January 2021: Left central neck node dissection for thyroid carcinoma with thymic tissue showing an incidental type A microscopic thymoma, described as a small (<0.2 cm) focus. Diagnosis comments further indicate this is morphologically consistent with a microscopic thymoma (type A).

4/28/21 PET: There is extensive widespread/multifocal hypermetabolic uptake within lymph nodes, skeleton, and spleen, compatible with malignancy. Differential diagnosis includes lymphoma and metastatic disease of indeterminate primary, with lymphoma favored.

4/28/21 Right retroperitoneal lymph node, needle core biopsy: Large B-cell lymphoma. See comment. Comment: The differential includes T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma and diffuse variant of nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma. It is challenging to distinguish these two on the needle core biopsy. An excisional biopsy is recommended for a definite diagnosis if clinically appropriate. ADDENDUM: B-Cell Lymphoma, FISH: negative. No rearrangement of MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 and no fusion of MYC and IGH.

5/14/21 Gastrohepatic lymph node, biopsy: Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) with T-cell/histiocyte rich diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. Focal in situ follicular neoplasia.

6/3/21 Medical Oncologist: Biopsy confirms that patient has a nodular lymphocytic Hodgkin lymphoma which has transformed into a T-cell rich DLBCL. This variant of Hodgkin disease is a good prognostic histology which generally behaves indolently, like a low grade lymphoma.

Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC).

Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction.

If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11.

The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary.

5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate

10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring.

06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor.

07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic.