SEER Inquiry System - Search

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of the stomach is reportable. The WHO classification of digestive system tumors uses the term NET G1 (grade 1) as a synonym for carcinoid and well-differentiated NET, 8240/3.

We will add the same definition for teratoma with malignant transformation found in the ovary table: 9084/3 Teratoma with malignant transformation when a malignant (/3) histology arises in a benign teratoma.

Teratoma with malignant transformation and teratoma with somatic-type malignancy are synonoyms. The term teratoma with somatic-type malignancy is outdated and no longer recommended.

We recommend that you do not use information from these molecular tumor profiling tests until they become a standard diagnostic tool. If/when that happens, we will add information to the various manuals.

We recommend that you contact the pathologist for further information. If no further information is available, do not accession this case based on the information provided. There is no definitive statement of malignancy.

If the case was sent to a consultant, there may be another opinion available. If there is information in the record, or the treating physician can be contacted, find out whether the tumor was benign or malignant and whether there was any further treatment.

According to our pathologist consultant, based only on the information above and nothing else, do not report since there is no diagnosis of malignancy.

We recommend coding endometrium, C541, as the primary site for this case. While coding to fundus would not be incorrect, according to our expert pathologist consultant, "it is more appropriate in a setting in which the region of the uterus is of importance, e.g. with a myoma or a myosarcoma, or if the endometrioid carcinoma were NOT in the endometrium but arising in a focus of adenomyosis within the fundic myometrium "

We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.

Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.

As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.

We found that the term AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS"was incorrectly included as an alternate name with code 9896/3. We followed back with our expert hematopathologist and he stated that this should have been coded to 9861/3 (AML, NOS), for AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS. This alternate name has been added to 9861/3. (Note: The same alternate name has been removed from 9896/3).

IDH-2 is not listed as a genetic abnormality for any of the histologies listed in the database. It could be that this is a new genetic marker for one of the AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities that we are not aware of. Without further clarification on which histology the IDH-2 would indicate, you would have to default to 9861/3.

There are several histologies that are grouped as AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities."All of these have specific genetics listed as part of the ICD-O-3 histology name.

9865: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(6;9)(p23;q34.1) DEK-NUP214

9866: Acute promyelocytic leukemia with PML-RARA

9869: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(3)(q21.3q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21.3;q26.2); GATA2, MECOM

9871: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22); CBFB-MYH11

9877: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated NPM1 (2021+)

9878: Acute myeloid leukemia with biallelic mutation of CEBPA (2021+)

9879: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated RUNX1 (2021+)

9896: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22.1); RUNX1-RUNX1T1

9897: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(9;11)(p21.3;q23.3); KMT2A-MLLT3

9911: Acute myeloid leukemia (megakaryoblastic) with t(1;22)(p13.3;q13.1); RBM15-MKL1

9912: Acute myeloid leukemia with BCR-ABL1 (2021)+

Of note, for the above histologies, since these are diagnosed solely based on genetics, diagnostic confirmation will always be 3. This instruction will be added to the Hematopoietic database for the 2022 update.

We do not recommend using the size from a core biopsy for clinical tumor size. A core biopsy does not necessarily obtain enough tissue to know the actual tumor size. Since there is imaging for this patient, it is preferable to record clinical tumor size from the imaging report in this case.

The instructions will be clarified in the next revision of the SEER manual.

We consulted with our expert hematopathologist who advised this is a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma (9659/3).

The diagnosis from 5/14/2021 states NLPHL. It also states there is T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues demonstrates six different patterns to NLPHL, which are: A) 'classical' nodular, B) serpiginous/interconnected nodular, C) nodular with prominent extra-nodular LP cells, D) T-cell-rich nodular, E) diffuse with a T-cell-rich background, and F) diffuse, B-cell-rich pattern.

In this case, they are describing a NLPHL type E (diffuse with a T-cell rich background). The term used is "T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-LIKE transformation. "Like" as used here means that it is like a transformation; if it was NLPHL transforming to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it would not have the word "like" in the diagnosis. This is a variant of NLPHL and not an actual transformation to another lymphoma. Even though NLPHL can transform to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it is not the case here since the word "like" appears in the diagnosis.

We will update the histology in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database to include these additional patterns.

We consulted with an expert GYN pathologist. He confirmed our thinking that endometrial stripe or thickening does not represent clinical tumor size. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual for reference.