Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200062 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a 7/2016 diagnosis of right lower lobe lung mucinous adenocarcinoma, treated with Erlotinib and Avastin? In 4/2020, a liver biopsy finds metastatic high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, clinically stated to be metastatic lung cancer, with no evidence of a new primary lung tumor on PET (liver the only site of disease)? See Discussion. |
We think this should be a single primary because the Solid Tumor rules do not apply to metastases. However, we are not sure whether or not the instructions outlined for prostate (SINQ 20180088, 20130221), that indicate we are to accession a new metastatic tumor only with a small cell neuroendocrine histology after an adenocarcinoma, also applies to lung primaries. We are aware of a phenomenon in which lung adenocarcinoma cases treated with Erlotinib can transform to small cell, but do not know whether it impacts the number of reportable primaries. |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] per Rule M8 of the Lung Solid Tumor Rules, as these histology codes are on different rows in Table 3 of the rules. This is consistent with similar prior SINQ questions. |
2020 |
|
|
20200061 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: A patient has high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation followed by carcinosarcoma. Is this one or two primaries? See Discussion. |
12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2. Histology 8130 01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin. 07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used? |
The carcinosarcoma is a separate tumor, abstract a new primary per M13. Code this primary to 8980/3. Based on the information provided, the patient was first diagnosed with papillary urothelial carcinoma and received neo-adjuvant treatment for that specific histologic type. Subsequent resection identified carcinosarcoma arising within the papillary neoplasm. Carcinosarcoma is rare in bladder primaries and is not included in Table 2; however, it is a subtype/variant of sarcoma. |
2020 |
|
|
20200060 | First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion. |
Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease? |
Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items. |
2020 |
|
|
20200059 | Reportability--Kidney: Is Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney reportable, and would the first CT date be the date of diagnosis? See Discussion. |
CT a/p read by radiologist shows: "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney." Follow-up MRI a month later reads "right kidney cystic lesion with enhancing mural nodule concerning for cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." Urologist consult used the same wording of "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion" and "concerning for renal cell carcinoma." Treatment discussed but due to patient health status recommended repeat imaging. Repeat CT few months later reads: "cystic right renal lesion with enhancing nodule similar to most recent prior and suspicious for cystic RCC." Though "suspicious for cystic RCC" per latest imaging is reportable, Bosniak 4 is "clearly malignancy, ~100% malignant" by definition, so is the case actually reportable with the first CT a/p date as date of diagnosis? |
2023 Bosniak 4 is defined as "clearly malignant cystic mass." The case is reportable as of the first date it is diagnosed as a Bosniak 4 lesion unless further workup (especially biopsy or resection) disproves the CT findings. https://radiopaedia.org/articles/bosniak-classification-system-of-renal-cystic-masses?lang=us |
2020 |
|
|
20200058 | Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery Codes, NOS--Pancreas: What exactly is an extended pancreatoduodenectomy? Must the entire pancreas be resected in order to use code 70? What minimal requirements must be met to use code 70? How should a Whipple with cholecystectomy, partial omentectomy, common hepatic excision, portal vein resection, and lymphadenectomy be coded? |
According to our research, a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) includes an en bloc resection of the pancreatic head, the common bile duct, the gallbladder, the duodenum, the upper jejunum, the distal portion of the stomach and the adjacent lymph nodes. The extended PD procedure includes extended lymphadenectomy, extended organ resection, and extended vascular resection and reconstruction. Code 70 could be assigned without the entire pancreas being resected. A Whipple procedure removes the head of the pancreas, duodenum, stomach and gallbladder and part the common bile duct. The portal vein resection is probably part of the common bile duct excision. If the omentectomy was performed for treatment of this primary, record it in "Surgical Procedure of Other Site." Record the lymphadenectomy in the lymph node data items. |
2020 | |
|
|
20200057 | Histology--Lung: Is there a better code for SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms than 8000/3 that could be used especially given its aggressive nature? This term is not included in the Lung Solid Tumor Rules or ICD-O-3.1 and 3.2. See Discussion. |
Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32. |
Assign code 8020/3. SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms are newly identified. WHO has not proposed an ICD-O code as of yet. Our pathology experts suggest coding to undifferentiated carcinoma until they are better classified. |
2020 |
|
|
20200056 | Reportability--Gallbladder: Is Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia reportable? The primary site is gallbladder. |
Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia is not reportable. The WHO assigns a behavior of 0 to these neoplasms. |
2020 | |
|
|
20200055 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Should a case with treatment delayed due to COVID-19 be abstracted as one or two primaries? It is uncertain if the invasive tumor would be a new tumor, or deeper extension/disease progression from the original tumor. See Discussion. |
11/18/2019 Left 1st Digit/Thumb Biopsy: Atypical Melanocytic Proliferation consistent with Early Acral Lentiginous Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. (Not a reportable diagnosis for 2019.) 12/5/2019 Left 1st Digit Shave Biopsies: Malignant Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. 1/15/2020 Started Aldara (treatment plan: use for ~3 months then Mohs/excision, but due to COVID could not get resection until 7/2020). 7/29/2020 Left Thumb Excision: Residual Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. Treatment Plan: re-excision. 8/6/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision: Atypical Lentiginous Melanocytic Proliferation at the 12-2 margin may represent the advancing edge of melanoma in situ. (8/19/2020 Plan to treat the 12-2 margin as positive with in situ; plan for re-excision). 8/20/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision & Left Nail Plate Excision: Malignant Acral Lentiginous Melanoma with extensive melanoma in situ. Breslow 1.3mm. Margins Positive. Nail plate & bed epithelium with hemorrhage and a mild increase in melanocyte density likely represent melanoma in situ. 9/4/2020 Left thumb partial amputation & Left axillary Sentinel Lymph Node Excision: Residual Malignant Melanoma in situ. 0/3 sentinel nodes positive. |
Abstract a single primary using the Solid Tumor Rules for melanoma. Report this melanoma as invasive (/3) as documented in the information from 8/20/2020. The treatment delay does not influence the number of primaries to be reported. Registries in SEER regions: Report the COVID-related information as directed in the COVID-19 Abstraction Guidelines, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/covid-19/. |
2020 |
|
|
20200054 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion. |
Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion? Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary? |
Both examples are multiple primaries. Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart. Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing. The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide. |
2020 |
|
|
20200053 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder. Would the metastatic diagnosis indicate a new primary? If the metastatic diagnosis indicates a new primary, would the primary site be C688 and date of diagnosis 11/14/18? See Discussion. |
7/8/16 Urinary bladder, biopsy: Non-invasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is not identified. 9/2/16 Urinary bladder, bladder tumor, transurethral resection: High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. No definite invasion identified. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is identified and not involved by tumor. 1/7/17 A\S\Bladder: Noninvasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Granulomatous cystitis, consistent with BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guerin) treatment. Lamina propria is not involved with tumor. Detrusor muscle is not identified. 4/4/17 Dome: Papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade. No evidence of invasion. Muscularis propria is not present. Patient is clearly followed for at least a year but no further information until 19 months later, 11/14/18, when biopsy of lung indicates metastatic disease. 11/14/18 Lung, right lower lobe, mass, biopsy: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis results (CK7 positive, CK20 focally positive, P63 positive, GATA3 positive, TTF1 negative and NAPSIN-A negative) support the diagnosis |
Do not use the solid tumor rules to assess the 2018 diagnosis. See Note 1 on page 20 of the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/Urinary_STM.pdf The 2018 diagnosis proves that this patient had invasive bladder cancer. Change the behavior on the abstract to /3 and use text fields to record the details. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
