SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was diagnosed with carcinosarcoma of Mullerian origin on omental/pelvic biopsies in March 2021. First course treatment was neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by July 2021 resection showing residual primary endometrial carcinosarcoma with cervical stromal invasion and involvement of bilateral tubes/ovaries, omentum, and mesenteric nodule. Additional findings included endometrium with background endometroid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN).

In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach?

Table 3 (Breast Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists “Neuroendocrine tumor, well-differentiated” of the breast as histology 8246/3. There is no entry for a grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor of the breast in Table 3.  

The pathologist did not indicate the neuroendocrine tumor was poorly differentiated (or it would otherwise be a small cell carcinoma). The pathologist noted “By current WHO criteria, this tumor is characteristic of a mammary neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.  These invasive tumors have similar prognostic and predictive features of invasive ductal carcinoma of the same grade and stage.”

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.

Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage.  EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage.

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?

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.

Patient is diagnosed March 2021, with malignant pleural effusion, clinical impression supports either endometrial or tubo-ovarian primary and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is given. Subsequent total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) in July, shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right fallopian tube and bilateral ovaries, as well as bilateral STIC. Summary Stage lists tumor site as right fallopian tube, with the serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) noted under “additional findings.”

Should the contralateral (left-sided) STIC be accessioned as an additional primary, per MP/H Rule M8, the since fallopian tubes are listed in Table 1 as Paired Organs with Laterality?