SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient has left salpingo-oophorectomy showing fallopian tube with focal high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm.

In reviewing some journal articles, the term STIN is being used to describe both STIC and serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (STIL). We will likely continue to see this term used, so it would be nice to have some clarity.

Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

The Solid Tumor histology coding guideline #3 for Lung states that an ambiguous histology can only be coded over an NOS when a physician clinically confirms it or the patient receives treatment based on the ambiguous histology; similar instructions exist in rules H3 and H12.  We are in a central registry and don't typically have access to physician notes or treatment plans; unfortunately our hospital abstracts rarely document physician confirmation of ambiguous histology and we are uncertain if we should accept their coding of the more specific histology, assuming they did find clinical confirmation that was not documented.  If not, our understanding of the Solid Tumor rules is that the histology in such a case would have to be coded as malignancy NOS (8000/3) per the non-ambiguous final diagnosis, and that we cannot use the more specific but ambiguous squamous cell carcinoma since we don't have definite clinical confirmation.  We also have a fair number of cytology-only lung cases without any hospital information to clinically confirm an ambiguous histology.

In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found.  Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0?

Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia).

4/28/21 PET: There is extensive widespread/multifocal hypermetabolic uptake within lymph nodes, skeleton, and spleen, compatible with malignancy. Differential diagnosis includes lymphoma and metastatic disease of indeterminate primary, with lymphoma favored.

4/28/21 Right retroperitoneal lymph node, needle core biopsy: Large B-cell lymphoma. See comment. Comment: The differential includes T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma and diffuse variant of nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma. It is challenging to distinguish these two on the needle core biopsy. An excisional biopsy is recommended for a definite diagnosis if clinically appropriate. ADDENDUM: B-Cell Lymphoma, FISH: negative. No rearrangement of MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 and no fusion of MYC and IGH.

5/14/21 Gastrohepatic lymph node, biopsy: Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) with T-cell/histiocyte rich diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. Focal in situ follicular neoplasia.

6/3/21 Medical Oncologist: Biopsy confirms that patient has a nodular lymphocytic Hodgkin lymphoma which has transformed into a T-cell rich DLBCL. This variant of Hodgkin disease is a good prognostic histology which generally behaves indolently, like a low grade lymphoma.

We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051.  The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET).  Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET).  In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list.  Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else?  Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS.  For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.

Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE.

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?