SEER Inquiry System - Search

Details

4/15/2018:  Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma.  Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome.

1/21/2019:  Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas

8/7/2019:  Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report

9/30/2020:  Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas.  

10/14/2020:  Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note:  History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection.

10/18/2021:  Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma

Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules

#1:       4/15/2018:  C445-1

#2:       1/21/2019:  C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18

#3:       8/7/2019:  C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8

#4:       8/7/2019:  C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12

#5:       8/7/2019:  C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11

#6:       9/30/2020:  C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10

#7:       9/30/2020:  C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18.

#8:       10/18/2021:  C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10

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?

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.

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?

The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma).

Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered.

Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility.

Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary?

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?

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 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).

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.