SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.

The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?

The patient presented with a right chest wall nodule. The PET scan showed widespread disease: subcutaneous nodule/mass in the left scalp and right chest wall; large right paraspinal mass; soft tissue density likely a second early paraspinal mass at the right costovertebral junction; right paravertebral mass; and abnormal bony foci in the right humeral head, right iliac crest, right acetabulum and right femur. The physical exam showed 2 cm left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy and a firm 3 cm mass in the right chest wall. Lungs were clear. Abdomen showed no masses or ascites, and no palpable hepatosplenomegaly.

Chest wall nodule excisional biopsy pathology: Lymph node and adjacent soft tissue: Malignant lymphoma with components: 1. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%). 2. Follicular lymphoma, grade 3A (60%). Pathology report note states the diffuse large cell lymphoma is probably arising from the follicular center cell lymphoma.

Should this be a single primary? There is no mention of cutaneous lymphoma.

The patient is diagnosed by bilateral mammograms suspicious for malignancy in both breasts. A biopsy is done on one breast and is positive. The physician states that he will not biopsy the contralateral breast, as the patient has consented to bilateral mastectomy. The patient receives neoadjuvant chemo, follow by bilateral mastectomies. Both breasts are negative for residual cancer, stated as a complete response. Based on "suspicious for malignancy" can we accession two primaries and assume bilateral complete response?

The patient is a 34 year old who presented with testicular pain radiating into the abdomen approximately 1 month before orchiectomy in 2018. CT abdomen/pelvis: Multiple focal sclerotic bone lesions. Given the lack of change from July 2014, these are likely benign bone islands. No adenopathy mentioned. He has no prior history of germ cell tumor nor any surgery for any tumor/cancer before this. Pathology: Testis, left, radical orchiectomy: - Demarcated scar tissue (1.3 cm), with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor. No evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). - Margins are unremarkable.

The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?

The patient has testicular cancer with bilateral lung metastases and possible liver metastasis. The left orchiectomy final diagnosis was The Summary describes a single tumor that is, Germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) is also present. Although there is mixed germ cell tumor present, the PNET component of the tumor is locally invasive extending into the epididymis, hilar soft tissues, spermatic cord, and tunica vaginalis. The mixed germ cell tumor is limited to the testis only.

We are instructed not to use to the term to code histology in the MP/H Rules General Instructions (Other Site Rules not updated for 2018), however the PNET comprises the majority of this tumor and represents the most extensive disease. Should the PNET histology be ignored in this case as its a ?

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?

The patient has gastric cancer and the physician prescribed medical marijuana as treatment. SEER*Rx says marijuana is ancillary as a psychoactive cannabinoid and antiemetic and advises not to code it. The physician specifically wrote "treatment with" in the record. Should it be coded as Other (Code 1) under Other Therapy?

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)?

The patient has adenopathy and a lymph node biopsy proved CLL/SLL. The patient underwent a peripheral blood smear, but the final diagnosis only indicated there is an abnormal CLL panel, positive for monoallelic or biallelic deletion of 13q. The pathologist noted a CLL related clone was detected, but there was no definitive diagnosis of CLL on the peripheral blood. No bone marrow biopsy was performed. However, the managing physician noted this was Rai Stage I CLL/SLL with adenopathy in the neck.

The SSDI Manual notes, “Rai stage is only applicable for CLL, in which the bone marrow and/or peripheral blood are involved (primary site C421 for bone marrow, see Hematopoietic Manual, Module 3: PH 5, 6).” Should primary site default to C421 if the physician provides a Rai Stage in the absence of definitive peripheral blood or bone marrow involvement documented in the medical record?