System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/15/2024 00:22 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100024

Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion.

In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm.

Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant.

 2010
20100022 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2010 diagnosis of ALK+ anaplastic T cell lymphoma following a 2008 diagnosis of follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 a new primary? If so, how is the histology coded? See Discussion. A patient has a history of Stage 4 follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] diagnosed in 2008. The patient was treated with Adriamycin, Cytoxan, Rituxan, and Prednisone. In 2010, the medical oncologist states the patient has progression/recurrence of lymphoma with pathology that has changed to anaplastic T cell lymphoma ALK+. There was immunophenotyping, but there was no more specific diagnosis made. The patient died within 3 months.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Abstract the anaplastic T cell lymphoma as a new primary. Code the histology to 9714/3 [Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive].

Rule M15 applies to this cases which instructs you to use the Multiple Primaries Calculator. The result for 9695/3 and 9714/3 is "New Primary."

Apply Rule PH30 to code histology which instructs you to use the Heme DB to determine the histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. In searching the Heme DB for "anaplastic" the first term returned is Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive [9714/3].

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100020 Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for a "cystic glioma"? Code the histology 9380/3 [Malignant glioma; Glioma, NOS]. There is no specific code for cystic glioma. 2010
20100019 Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion. At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy." Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor. 2010
20100018 Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is light chain disease reportable if it is treated with chemotherapy agents? See Discussion.

A patient was diagnosed in 2010 with light chain disease based on SPEP and urine testing. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy were done. Flow cytometry, cytogenetic studies and FISH for plasma cell disorders are all normal. Medical oncologist states diagnosis is light chain disease. Patient was started on Revlimid, dexamethasone and Velcade.

In reviewing the case reportability instructions, this seems to fall under Instruction 1, note 1. Immunoglobulin deposition disease, preferred term for light chain disease, is coded as 9769/1. This is normally a non-reportable diagnosis, but the patient was given cancer-directed treatment. Would this case be accessioned using the above morphology code and primary site of bone marrow [C42.1]?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case is not reportable. The histology is 9769/1 [light chain disease] in the Heme DB.

Light chains are produced in neoplastic plasma cells (multiple myeloma) and are called Bence-Jones proteins. The physician did the cytogenetic studies and FISH to rule out plasma cell disease. 50-60% of people with Light-chain deposition disease (LCDD) have an associated lymphoproliferative disorder, most commonly multiple myeloma. The remaining patients develop LCDD in the setting of progression of monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) with no evidence of neoplastic plasma cell proliferation. This patient falls in this category, MGUS, which is not reportable.

2010
20100017 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Does adenosquamous carcinoma found in the prostate represent a second primary in a patient previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed many years ago with adenocarcinoma of the prostate and treated with hormonal and radiation therapy. The patient recently underwent a TURP and is found to have adenosquamous carcinoma of the prostate. The pathology report comment states squamous carcinoma of the prostate is rare and is often associated with a history of hormonal or radiation therapy. There is no information indicating a history of a squamous carcinoma in the urinary system that could have involved the prostatic urethra.

Would the MP/H rules make this a second primary with the histology of 8560/3 [adenosquamous carcinoma]?

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, based on the limited information available for this unusual case, abstract a second prostate primary and code the histology as adenosquamous carcinoma. Rule M3 does not apply in this case. Apply rule M10. 2010
20100015

Type of Multiple Tumors/Multiplicity Counter--Breast. Are the data items "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" and "Multiplicity Counter" related? How should they be coded for breast cases in which there are multiple measured invasive tumors, plus DCIS which is not measured nor stated whether it is separate from the invasive tumors? See Discussion.

For example, path report states only "multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm and 0.8 cm, and low-grade DCIS." The Multiplicity Counter instructions tell us to ignore/do not count foci that are not measured. Should we interpret this to mean, count only the two invasive foci and ignore the DCIS? Should Type of Multiple Tumors then be coded 30 or 40, because only the invasive tumors are coded in Multiplicity Counter? Code Type of Multiple Tumors 30 [in situ and invasive]. The code in Type of Multiple Tumors may or may not reflect the tumors that were counted in Multiplicity Counter. For this case, it is correct to code 02 in multiplicity counter. 2010
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. 2010
20100013

Reportability--Lymphoma: Should a December 2008 diagnosis of in situ follicular lymphoma be accessioned? See Discussion.

Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored.

Do not report in situ lymphoma at this time. Currently, lymphoma cannot be reported with a behavior code of in situ (/2) and it would be incorrect to abstract in situ lymphoma as a /3.

It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.

2010
20100012 Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. 2010