SEER Inquiry System - Search

Rule H8 of the Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules states that multiple variants of melanoma in one tumor are rare and a question must be submitted to Ask a SEER Registrar (AASR) for the correct histology code. However, our facility has seen a number of these cases in 2021 and would like to track the official answer and make it available to all in this format.

How should histology be coded for the following?

1. January 2021 diagnosis of left shoulder invasive malignant melanoma, histologic type: nodular and desmoplastic types per College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary of punch biopsy.

2. May 2021 shave biopsy of left arm invasive malignant melanoma, superficial spreading and nodular variant is listed in the CAP summary.

3. June 2021 diagnosis of right cheek invasive malignant melanoma, histologic subtype: superficial spreading and nodular seen on CAP summary of shave biopsy.

The Solid Tumor histology coding guideline #3 for Lung states that an ambiguous histology can only be coded over an NOS when a physician clinically confirms it or the patient receives treatment based on the ambiguous histology; similar instructions exist in rules H3 and H12.  We are in a central registry and don't typically have access to physician notes or treatment plans; unfortunately our hospital abstracts rarely document physician confirmation of ambiguous histology and we are uncertain if we should accept their coding of the more specific histology, assuming they did find clinical confirmation that was not documented.  If not, our understanding of the Solid Tumor rules is that the histology in such a case would have to be coded as malignancy NOS (8000/3) per the non-ambiguous final diagnosis, and that we cannot use the more specific but ambiguous squamous cell carcinoma since we don't have definite clinical confirmation.  We also have a fair number of cytology-only lung cases without any hospital information to clinically confirm an ambiguous histology.

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.

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?

2021 Bone marrow biopsy showed erythroid hyperplasia, increased histiocytes with hemophagocytosis and Factor XIIIa positive histocytic cells. Moderate cytoplasmic staining for ALK 1, consistent with bone marrow involvement of ALK-positive histiocytosis. A subsequent kidney lesion biopsy was also found to have ALK-positive histiocytosis. The patient was then treated with clofarabine.

Patient is 3 years old.

07/2020-Chart indicates patient presented in June with fevers and refusing to walk with pancytopenia, bone marrow biopsy showed no leukemia buthistiocytes. Impression: ALK positive histiocytosis involving BM and kidney.

10/2020 Bone marrow final diagnosis states right and left bone marrow aspirates and biopsies: No morphologic or immunohistochemical evidence of involvement by the patient's previously diagnosed ALK+ histiocytosis (see Comments) - Multiple histiocytic collections with prominent hemosiderin; favor reactive - background normocellular bone marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis.

The patient's prior bone marrow samples are reviewed (9/2020 and 7/2020). Similar to the September bone marrow sample, the current marrow shows numerous histiocyte collections with abundant associated hemosiderin deposition. These histiocytes have a stellate/dendritic appearance and lack the atypical features noted in the patient's marrow at diagnosis, favoring a reactive process. This impression is further supported by the lack of immunoreactivity for either Factor XIIIa or ALK1 among these cells. There is no convincing morphologic or immunohistochemical evidence of marrow involvement by the patient's previously diagnosed ALK+ histiocytosis within the sampled material. Of note, the marrow otherwise appears normocellular for the patient's age, indicative of ongoing marrow recovery post therapy.

It is not clear whether this would be equivalent to Langerhans cell histiocytosis, disseminated (9751/3) as there is not a statement of Langerhans cell or whether this is just histiocytosis, NOS and not reportable.

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?

A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.”  Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification.

Acinar predominant adenocarcinoma measures at least 12 mm and involves wedge biopsy margins, while the lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma measures 11 mm and does not involve the margins of that separate specimen. Pathologist also notes, “CT findings of diffuse coarse reticular nodular opacity, these findings may represent pneumonic type adenocarcinoma/diffuse pulmonary involvement or intrapulmonary metastasis.  Both of these scenarios have the corresponding stages of pT4 (if thought to be ipsilateral) or M1a (if thought to also involve the contralateral lobe).”

Patient declined any further treatment and transitioned to hospice before expiring less than 1 month after wedge biopsies.

It is unclear if Rule M6 would apply to these two specimens with different subtypes since this scenario is not specifically addressed in the M rule definitions.

Patient had a partial nephrectomy with final diagnosis of papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity.  Diagnosis comment states: Papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity is currently considered to be a histologic variant of papillary renal cell carcinoma; however, recent studies suggest that it has a very indolent clinical behavior.

Patient has a 2021 left parotidectomy showing myoepithelial carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma.  Is this coded to myoepithelial carcinoma (8982/3) or carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma (8941/3)?  It is unclear how to arrive at the correct histology code using the current Solid Tumor Rules.