SEER Inquiry System - Search

Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade.

The Equivalent Terms and Definitions sections in the Solid Tumor Rules for these schemas identify which sites must have laterality coded, but there is no instruction for coding laterality when bilateral tumors are a single primary. The SEER Manual currently only indicates code 4 (bilateral) is seldom used (e.g., bilateral ovarian tumors, Wilms tumors, etc.) but does not indicate laterality code 4 should be used for CNS tumors. Is this note going to be updated or should a non-bilateral code be applied?

Example: MRI demonstrates multiple left-sided dural-based meningiomas including a 4.4 cm left posterior fossa meningioma, a 0.8 cm left frontal-parietal meningioma and a right posterior frontal meningioma. The large left posterior fossa meningioma was resected and proved atypical meningioma. Should the laterality be 4 (bilateral) as the patient had both left and right-sided meningiomas confirmed to be a single primary? Or should the laterality be coded as 2 (left) since only the large left-sided meningioma was proven to be a borderline tumor (atypical meningioma, 9539/1) and the others were benign?

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?

It appears an argument could be made for both NLPHL (9659/3) and THRLBCL (9688/3). We favor coding NLPHL (9659/3) because the pathologist did specifically call this a Hodgkin lymphoma, and also specified that it only has a T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like pattern.

The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document.

In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority.

Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not?

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

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?