SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features in February 2021, left breast biopsies at 2:00 (3 cm from nipple) and 3:00 (8 cm from nipple) positions. Intraductal component was absent in those specimens.

Subsequent left breast total mastectomy in March 2021, provided a final diagnosis of multifocal mixed mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, 27 and 8 mm and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), low to intermediate grade, with focal mucinous features. The Staging Summary lists Histologic Type as mixed mucinous carcinomafor both foci of invasive carcinoma. DCIS is also noted as present negative for extensive intraductal component.

There does not appear to be a clear instruction or code for this histology. As a central registry, we are unable to follow-up with the pathologist regarding this diagnosis.

Just to be clear, there are 2 foci of invasive mixed mucinous carcinoma in this case measuring 27 mm and 8 mm. The DCIS component measured 56 mm.

Currently, First Course Therapy instruction for expectant management (also referred to as active surveillance, watchful waiting, etc.) instructs one to code 0 or 00 (not done) for all data items when the physician opts for expectant management.

We find that the treatment decisions can be driven by the patient, physician, or combination of both patient and physician depending on the options presented.

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.

Patient was diagnosed on 01/2020, and primary site on the pathology report is Ampulla of Vater (C241). Synoptic Report states histology as: Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion.

I have reviewed the ICD-O-3 coding table and found histology Intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasm (C25_) code 8503/2. Based on the Matrix principle (Rule F on the ICD-O-3), I will change the behavior to 3 and code as 8503/3. If I look in ICDO-3, Tubulopapillary adenocarcinoma is coded 8263/3.

In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found.  Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0?

Patient was initially diagnosed in 2017 with LR-5 lesions in segments 3 and 7 of liver and treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Routine scans in 2019 show no evidence of residual or recurrent disease.

Surveillance imaging in 2020 identifies LR-TR viable segment 3 treatment zone with slowly growing arterially-enhancing nodule as well as increasing arterial enhancement in the neighboring parenchyma. No new LR-4 or LR-5 observations. Patient is not a surgical candidate but is treated with Y-90 radiotherapy.

Per Rule M10, tumors diagnosed more than 1 year apart are multiple primaries. However, there is no clear clinical statement of malignancy in this case.

Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.

Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna 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 H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule?