SEER Inquiry System - Search

We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051.  The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET).  Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET).  In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list.  Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else?  Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS.  For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.

Patient was diagnosed with carcinosarcoma of Mullerian origin on omental/pelvic biopsies in March 2021. First course treatment was neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by July 2021 resection showing residual primary endometrial carcinosarcoma with cervical stromal invasion and involvement of bilateral tubes/ovaries, omentum, and mesenteric nodule. Additional findings included endometrium with background endometroid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN).

Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant.

We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case.

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

1. 12/11/2020 Peripheral blood revealing what was thought to be chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL1 positive (9875/3). Patient was started on Hydrea while waiting for further tests on 12/12/2020.

2. 12/14/2020 Lymph node biopsy showed granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), but flow cytometry states it is similar to that seen in the patient's peripheral blood and is consistent with nodal involvement by myeloblasts.

3. 12/15/2020 Bone marrow biopsy reads acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3), likely arising from BCR/ABL1 positive chronic myeloid leukemia. There is a note on this pathology from medical oncologist that says: This will dramatically change the course of his treatment, likely with a TKI.

4. 12/17/2020 Sprycel started. Patient was weaned off Hydrea.

According to Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. It lists 9930/3 when simultaneously (or after) with 9861/3. Technically, it was two days before, but I feel like I should and could count that as simultaneously because of Note 1 that says: These sarcomas are solid manifestations of the associated leukemia. For example, when acute myeloid leukemia and myeloid sarcoma are diagnosed simultaneously, the myeloid sarcoma is the result of myeloid cells migrating from the bone marrow or blood into tissue. It is part of the disease process for the acute leukemia. Also, the providers never mention granulocytic sarcoma

Based on that, I think that #2 & #3 above are the same primary, which would be acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3).

Per the hematopoietic database, 9875/3 transforms to 9861/3. Therefore, Rule M8 is confusing with the "only one" biopsy. Does this rule apply because the 9875/3 was from peripheral blood only? But peripheral blood is coded in Diagnostic Confirmation as histology.

Rule M9 reads: The two diagnoses are likely the result of an ongoing diagnostic work-up. The later diagnosis is usually based on all of the test results and correlated with any clinical information. Because that is truly what I think is happening here though that rule states there is no available documentation. If you do not have any documentation, how would you know you are dealing with a chronic and an acute diagnosis?

M10 does not apply.

According to Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days and there is documentation of two biopsies. The chronic myelogenous leukemia only had peripheral blood and not a bone marrow, lymph node or tissue, but that is counted as positive histology in diagnostic confirmation, but I don't know if that is kept as a separate field/thought. I would not code a peripheral blood smear as with a surgical code or a surgical diagnostic and staging procedure code, so maybe that is what I should be thinking about and therefore would probably say Rule M8 and one primary.

Final Pathologic Diagnosis:

Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment)

Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM.

Margins: Negative.

Comment

Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised.

12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon:

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion.

PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management.