SEER Inquiry System - Search

In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?

The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit?

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?

Unlike most other sites, there is no specific code for a radical surgical procedure of a skin primary. In this case, the patient was diagnosed with a sebaceous cell carcinoma of the lower eyelid skin by punch biopsy. The tumor was large and an orbital exenteration was planned. Despite the extensive surgery performed, skin margins were less than 1 cm. Is an orbital exenteration a "major amputation" (code 60) in this case? Given that the margins were not greater than 1 cm, codes 45 - 47 (which includes a minor (local) amputation) don't seem to apply. However, if this procedure cannot be classified as "minor amputation" then doesn't it seem overkill to refer to the procedure as a "major amputation"?

An alternative would be to code Surgery of Primary Site to 32 for the skin resection (punch biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion, margins less than 1 cm) and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 (non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites) to record the removal of the globe and orbit as part of the orbital exenteration. Which is correct?

Does the Other Sites MP/H Rule H17 apply in this case, which results in coding the higher histology 8805/3 (undifferentiated sarcoma)? Or does the "undifferentiated" statement only refer to grade, which results in coding histology to 8802/3 (pleomorphic sarcoma)?

The patient had an upper arm shave biopsy with final diagnosis of basaloid carcinoma with squamous and neuroendocrine differentiation. The pathologist also comments: Further resection was negative for residual malignancy.

Would SINQ 20150033 apply, thus resulting in final histology of carcinoma with neuroendocrine carcinoma (8574/3)?

In September 2009 the patient was diagnosed with seminoma, classical type, following an orchiectomy. Testicular mass recurrence in 2014 was treated with chemotherapy.

Then in April 2015 a retroperitoneal dissection of a peri-aortic LN was positive for mixed germ cell tumor with somatic type malignancy (rhabdomyosarcoma) involving 1/11 nodes. Path Comment: major component of tumor is teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma represents <5% of mass.

Now in October 2016, the patient has a retroperitoneal mass biopsy positive for spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcomatous differentiation. The comment section of the pathology report states, "Given the history of a germ cell tumor w/ rhadbomosarcomatous component, the findings are consistent with a recurrence of rhabdomyosarcomatous component of germ cell tumor."

Can a seminoma transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (see SINQ 20140082 - testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy)?

Patient has a perihilar bile duct primary with a microscopic focus of invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma arising in a large papilloma. The MP/H Rules do not address adenocarcinomas arising in a papilloma, only adenocarcinomas arising in an adenoma (or polyp). Should the histology be coded as 8140 for the invasive adenocarcinoma component? Or should the matrix principle be applied and the histology coded as a malignant glandular papilloma (8260/3)?