SEER Inquiry System - Search

Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538?

Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology.

There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors.

If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11?

The synoptic report calls this “Invasive adenocarcinoma with secondary Paget disease of anal mucosa and perianal skin.” The tumor size is listed as “2.1 x 1.7 x 0.7 cm, including associated advanced adenoma; size does not include the extent of the associated Paget disease, which extends for at least 2 cm distally.”  Clinically this is called an incidentally discovered Paget’s disease.

It is unclear if this is a collision tumor that should be abstracted as separate primaries, or if this is a single tumor with underlying Paget’s disease (similar to that described in Other Sites Rule H26). If this is a single rectal tumor, there does not appear to be an H rule for this scenario.

The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.

Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?

Historically, multiple invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas diagnosed within 5 years were abstracted as a single primary. However, it is not clear if Rule M10 or M14 applies to this situation per the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules updates.

Rule M10 addresses multiple tumors of carcinoma of no special type (NST)/duct and lobular, but there is no timing criteria mentioned. Does M10 apply to cases diagnosed synchronously, or metachronously, or at least within 5 years? Should Rule M10 include a Note instructing registrars to accession a single primary for the scenario in question?

If timing matters for Rule M10, then the next rule that applies is M14. Rule M14 instructs one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3, and carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma are on separate rows in Table 3.

The patient has adenopathy in multiple lymph node regions above and below the diaphragm and a lymph node biopsy pathology proved CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Further work-up with peripheral blood proved an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population comprising only a small percentage of the white blood cells (WBCs). The pathologist noted this neoplastic B-cell population comprises “3.5% of white blood cells and has an immunophenotype characteristic of CLL/SLL and is similar to the recent lymph node biopsy in this patient.” The managing physician indicated this was a Lugano Stage III SLL. The registrar coded the peripheral blood involvement in EOD Primary Tumor.

If this small percentage of WBCs with an abnormal B-cell population is included in EOD Primary Tumor as peripheral blood involvement, then this would indicate peripheral blood/bone marrow involvement and primary site would need to be coded to C421 per Rule PH5. Rules PH5 and PH6 confirm primary site must be coded C421 if peripheral blood or bone marrow are involved.

Is there a cutoff value for these abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood? Or should these abnormal B-cell populations be ignored unless the pathologist states the abnormal B-cell population is consistent with CLL/SLL (not just immunophenotypically characteristic of CLL/SLL)?

Since the peripheral nerves are included in the Malignant CNS schema of the Solid Tumor Rules, neither the differences in subsite nor timing indicate these are separate primaries (Rule M10 indicates a single primary). However, these are separate MPNSTs in different sites and the tumors are not stated to be metastasis. Additionally, these are treated as separate primaries by the managing physician.

While the malignant CNS tumors do not take timing into account, is this correct for these peripheral nerve tumors that are often treated similarly to soft tissue tumors? Should Rule M8 be updated to include tumors in different peripheral nerve subsites?

Patient had a right thyroid lobectomy on 12/2022, with initial diagnosis of “thyroid carcinoma pending expert consultation for definitive classification.”  The slide review documented in the addendum shows a final diagnosis of “Angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm, see comment.”  The subsequent comment states, “I would classify this lesion as an angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma.”  The comment goes on to state, “Additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin. The diagnosis remains unchanged.”

Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory).

Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory?

The 10/2023 TURBT final diagnosis is “Urothelial carcinoma with mixed histologic appearances, see synoptic summary below for details.” The synoptic report includes, “Histologic Type Comment: Invasive carcinoma percentages: Micropapillary 60-70%, high grade or poorly differentiated urothelial 20-30%, squamous 10-20%.” The squamous component is stated to be “Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation.”

It appears there are two specific urothelial carcinoma subtypes to consider: Urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary variant (8131/3) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (8020/3). The squamous component would not be considered because there is no specific histology for “squamous differentiation.”

The micropapillary component is the predominant histology (60-70%) in this case, and it does seem like this is important to capture. However, the WHO Blue Book indicates poorly differentiated carcinoma of the bladder has a poor prognosis.