Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 01/28/2023 01:30 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer (Ascending)
20170081

Grade/Neuroblastoma: What grade is to be used when pathology states only differentiating retroperitoneal neuroblastoma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

Assign grade code 2 for "differentiating" retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. The rationale of our expert pathologist advisor is that "it leaves the grade 1 category open (since a "well differentiated neuroblastoma" is actually called ganglioneuroblastoma), and it also avoids putting "differentiating" into what is usually a well differentiated category."

Additionally, assign grade code 3 to a poorly differentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma and grade code 4 to an undifferentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma.

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later

Follow the instructions for coding grade in SEER*RSA

20100052 Reportability/Primary Site: What is the reportability status and primary site for a papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue arising in an otherwise benign mature monodermal cystic teratoma (struma ovarii)? See Discussion. Final diagnosis on the pathology report states, "One ovary showing mature monodermal cystic teratoma composed of thyroid tissue (struma ovarii)." The pathology COMMENT section states, "There is a 0.1 cm focus of thyroid tissue within the struma ovarii showing cytologic features of papillary carcinoma. This finding is likely of no clinical consequence."

A papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue in benign struma ovarii (mature cystic teratoma) is reportable.

These ovarian tumors contain a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth, bone, thyroid, etc. This reportable malignancy arose in thyroid tissue within the ovarian tumor. Code the primary site to ovary. Code to the actual organ in which the cancer arose. This will keep the case in the appropriate category for surgery coding, regional nodes, staging, etc.

20140039

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a statement of "JAK-2 positive polycythemia" reportable? See discussion.

Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. However, there is a statement in the Heme Manual Glossary for JAK2 that states, "When JAK2 is positive, the MPN is definitely reportable." Does a positive JAK 2 always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder or must there also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia)?

A positive JAK 2 does not always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder. There must also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia). The glossary entry will be clarified.

20061134 Reportability: Is an AIN III that arises in perianal skin, skin tags or condyloma acuminatum reportable or must an AIN III arise in the anus or anal canal in order to be reportable?

AIN III arising in perianal skin [C445] is not reportable.

AIN III [8077/2] of the anus or anal canal is reportable.

20220025

Reportability/Histology--Anal Canal:  For cases diagnosed in 2021, is anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) II reportable?   There is conflicting information regarding the reportability for AIN II.  SINQ 20210048 says to report AIN II but the 2021 SEER Manual Appendix E states intraepithelial neoplasia (8077/2 and 8148/2) must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable.

AIN II is reportable for 2021. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia.

The wording in Appendix E of the 2021 SEER manual (must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable) was left over from earlier versions and is not correct for 2021 diagnoses. Follow the guidance in SINQ 20210048.

20180094

Reportability--Prostate: According to the 2018 SEER Program Manual, a prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) III is not reportable, but is an atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) PIN 4 reportable?

ASAP is not reportable. Patients with ASAP found on needle biopsy will likely undergo another biopsy.

20200008

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Corpus uteri: How many primaries are accessioned for patient with a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp in 2001, followed by a metastatic poorly differentiated clear cell carcinoma of gynecologic (GYN) origin in 2019? See Discussion.

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be considered the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

Abstract a multiple primaries using 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule M10 as these tumors are more than one year apart. This represents endometrioid adenocarcinoma (8380/3 of C541) and 18 years later, clear cell Carcinoma (8310/3 consistent with GYN (C579) primary).

20190006

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Please confirm Multiple Primaries/Histology Breast Rule M8 applies in this 2017 case. The surgical resection is >60 days past the biopsy date but is it possible treatment plans for breast could span >60 days and this is one primary? See Discussion.

7/25/17

Part A: Left breast at 8:00, 5 CFN: Specimen type: Stereotactic biopsy. Tumor type: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), cribriform type. Tumor size: The largest focus of DCIS measures 1 mm in greatest dimension as measured on the slide. Nuclear grade: 2 (Intermediate grade). Microcalcifications: Present. Other findings: Stromal fibrosis, microcalcification and fat necrosis.

11/1/17

A. Sentinel lymph node, left: One lymph node, negative for metastatic tumor on three levels of routine H\T\E and pan cytokeratin immunohistochemical stains.

B. Left breast: Procedure: Total mastectomy with skin and nipple. Specimen Laterality: Left. Lymph Node Sampling: Yes, portion A. Specimen Integrity: Intact. Histologic Type: Extensive ductal carcinoma in situ and one focus of Invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features. Histologic Grade (Nottingham Histologic Score): Glandular Differentiation: Score 3 Nuclear Grade: Score 2. Mitotic Count: Score 1. Total Nottingham score 6 (grade 2, moderately differentiated). Tumor Size: 3.3 x 2 mm (0.33 x 0.2 cm) measured on slide (B3). Tumor Site: Lower inner quadrant of left breast. Tumor Focality: Unifocal. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Present, cribriform, solid and micropapillary types with focal necrosis and calcifications. Size of DCIS: Number of blocks examined: Thirty (30). Number of blocks with DCIS: Thirteen (13). Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS): Not identified, Lymphovascular Invasion: Present. Perineural Invasion: Not identified. Other Findings: Changes consistent with previous biopsy site. Cysts, foci of atypical ductal hyperplasia, focal ductal hyperplasia, adenosis, stromal fibrosis and microcalcifications. Skin (epidermis): Uninvolved. Nipple: Uninvolved. Margins: 1 mm from DCIS to the closest deep margin (slide B12). At least 10 mm (1 cm) from invasive carcinoma to deep margin. Estrogen receptor (ER, clone 1D5) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), high intensity, in greater than 95% of carcinoma cells. Progesterone receptor (PR, clone 16) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), moderate intensity in about 80% of the carcinoma cells. Her 2 by FISH performed on this material: Pending, an addendum to follow. Pathologic staging: pT1aN0(sn)MX (AJCC 7th edition). Dictated by: (Pathologist), MD Intradepartmental review.

Abstract a single breast primary. Apply MP/H Rule M3 as this is a single tumor identified in the biopsy at 8 o'clock and at the same location in the mastectomy specimen. Code the behavior as invasive according to rule H9.

The first course of therapy ends when the documented treatment plan is completed, no matter how long, unless there is progression, recurrence, or treatment failure.

20210022

Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Is basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma one or two primaries and if one, is the histology 8147/3? See Discussion.

Scenario: Patient had a transurethral resection of the prostate on 8-29-19, positive for basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation involving approximately 50% of tissue (determined not to be mets by consult). On 11-14-19, the patient had a prostatectomy positive for residual basal cell carcinoma and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma. According to AJCC, 8th edition, page 724, basal cell carcinoma of the prostate is 8147/3 and we ignored the small focus of adenocarcinoma. The above scenario was reported as two primaries (8090/3 and 8140/3), but we are thinking it is one.

Abstract a single primary and code as 8147/3 using Rule M18 and Rule H17 of the 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. This is based on the findings of basal cell carcinoma of the prostate (8147/3) and adenocarcinoma (8140/3). We consulted with the Subject Matter Expert who advises that basal cell carcinoma and basal cell adenocarcinoma can be used interchangeably.

This updates previous consultation regarding this histology. The Other Sites rules will be updated for 2022 and include this information in the prostate histology table.

20160001

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion.

Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.

This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?

Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf

This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information.