SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pathology--Right breast, lumpectomy with needle localization: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast. A separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ is present. Sentinel lymph node, right breast, biopsy: One lymph node, negative for malignancy. No metastatic carcinoma is seen on slides stained with immunostain for cytokeratin (AE1/AE3). Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 1.2 cm. Histologic type: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Nuclear grade: Grade 1 (low). Mitotic rate: Score 1. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): DCIS is present. Estimated size (extent) of DCIS: 3 mm. Architectural patterns: Cribriform and papillary. Nuclear grade: grade 1 (low). Necrosis: Not identified. Margins: Margins uninvolved by encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Distance from closest margin: 8 mm, superior Margins uninvolved by DCIS. Distance from closest margin: 11 mm, superior Lymph nodes: Total number of lymph nodes examined (sentinel and nonsentinel): 1. Number of sentinel lymph nodes examined: 1. Number of lymph nodes with tumor cells: 0. Pathologic staging: Primary tumor: See comment. Regional lymph nodes: pN0(i-). Comment: In the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast (2012), it is stated that "there is no universal agreement on how to stage encapsulated papillary carcinomas. In the absence of conventional invasive carcinoma, the consensus of the WHO Working Group was that such lesions should be staged and managed as Tis disease."

A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?

1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of

Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?

2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of

Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?

3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.

Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.

Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?

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 SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.

There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries?

The note in the Urinary Terms and Definition states, Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. While it is true that both Ta and Tis are technically noninvasive, the AJCC defines Ta specifically for, A pathologist's use of Ta does indicate the noninvasive carcinoma did arise from a papillary tumor. However, not all pathologists use terminology that, following the Urinary Solid Tumor Histology Coding Rules, will result in a histology coded to 8130, despite an AJCC-defined Ta (noninvasive papillary carcinoma) tumor having been diagnosed because the tumor projected from the wall on a stalk.

In our region a number of pathologists provide the following types of diagnosis.

Histologic type: Noninvasive.

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): High-grade.

Tumor configuration: Papillary.

The pathologist and/or physician may then stage this as Ta. How is the histology coded for these cases if the H Rules do not allow one to code the papillary and noninvasive Ta disease as not equivalent to noninvasive papillary carcinoma?

Flat (in situ) urothelial carcinoma has an increased risk of invasive disease compared to the noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. Will there be inconsistencies or a resulting impact to analysis of truly flat/in situ urothelial carcinoma vs. papillary urothelial carcinomas if the papillary tumors are not being coded as such?