SEER Inquiry System - Search

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?

Rule H13 states to code the histology to metaplastic carcinoma when there is metaplastic carcinoma (or a subtype/variant) and invasive carcinoma NST. This rule makes no mention of lobular carcinoma. However, in Table 3, Note 2 for metaplastic carcinoma (8575) states metaplastic carcinoma, NOS and subtypes are almost always mixed with invasive mammary carcinoma, NST and at times lobular carcinoma. These tumors should be coded to metaplastic regardless of percent invasive mammary carcinoma or lobular carcinoma present.

While Table 2 (the mixed histology code table) does include an entry for metaplastic carcinoma AND carcinoma NST OR lobular carcinoma, it is unclear why lobular carcinoma has not been added to Rule H13 as well.

If a single tumor has metaplastic plus lobular carcinoma, Rule H13 does not apply and one has to continue through the rules. Unfortunately, the next rule registrars would be tempted to use is Rule H18: Code the histology that comprises greater than 50% of tumor when two histologies are on different rows in Table 3. This Rule does not state it does NOT apply to metaplastic carcinoma (only mucinous). So, if for some reason the lobular was greater than 50%, the incorrect histology would be coded (unless the registrar happened to remember Note 2 in the metaplastic carcinoma entry in Table 3).

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Rule 4.j on page 128 of the 2004 SEER Manual states "Do not code the tumor size from a needle biopsy unless no residual tumor is found on further resection".

Example: 3/04/04 core biopsy Rt breast grade 1 infiltrating ductal carcinoma tumor size 0.8cm. 3/10/04 Lumpectomy: 3mm focus of residual infiltrating ductal carcinoma. If we can not take the size of the core needle biopsy, do we use the residual size of 3mm or the clinical size which was 1cm on mammogram?

Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease.

ROS Final Diagnosis: LSO: Ovary with an endometriotic cyst (1.2 cm) and stromal endometriosis with multifocal papillary syncytial eosinophilic, clear cell and tubal metaplasia, no evidence of carcinoma.

COMMENT: There is extensive endometriosis involving the ovarian stroma and the ovarian surface. The ovarian stroma contains multiple cystic endometrial glands and surrounding endometrial type stroma with variable amounts of hemorrhage. There are non-cystic foci of endometriosis comprised of small, irregular glandular structures within the stroma. The lining of larger cyst/cysts is involved by a single layer of cuboidal to columnar cells with markedly eosinophilic cytoplasm in areas of serous (tubal) metaplasia and papillary projections suggestive of papillary syncytial metaplasia. Within these areas there is epithelial tufting and stratification, raising the consideration of proliferative/borderline change (which we cannot entirely exclude), however, given the background of endometriosis and morphologic similarity to papillary syncytial metaplasia in the endometrium, we favor that this is a non-neoplastic reactive change. There is no evidence of carcinoma.

Robbins Pathology states the following about liver angiosarcomas: Hepatic angiosarcomas are rare but of interest because they are associated with distinct carcinogens, including arsenic (exposure to arsenical pesticides), Thorocast (a radioactive contrast medium previously widely used in radiology), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (widely used in plastics). The increased frequency of angiosarcomas among works in the PVC industry is one of the truly well-documented instances of chemical carcinogenesis in humans. With all these agents, there is a very long latent period of many years between exposure and the development of tumors.

Could the same apply to the spleen?

Right lobectomy pathology report final diagnosis states: 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma (see comment). Comment: histologic diagnosis Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma with Hurthle cell features. Subsequent left lobectomy one week later showed a 2 mm microscopic focus of follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, encapsulated.

None of the rules seems to fit this scenario. The number of primaries reported for this case depends on the histology coded for each tumor. Does Rule M6 (Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary.) or M17 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are at the first (xxx), second (xxx) or third (xxx) number are multiple primaries.) apply? Does the case represent a single primary because both are papillary/follicular tumors or two primaries because one is Hurthle cell carcinoma, and one is papillary/follicular carcinoma (different histology at second digit)?

To code the histology for the larger tumor in the right lobe, which rule do we apply? Rule H11 (single histology of Hurthle cell carcinoma [8290] per path final diagnosis), H15 (tumor has both follicular and papillary carcinoma [8340], per path comment), or H17 (numerically higher code for 8340 because there is both Hurthle cell and papillary/follicular carcinoma)?

Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant).

The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant.

Right Breast

06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved.

09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved.

10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS

Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002.

Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor.

Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites.