SEER Inquiry System - Search

The AJCC 8th edition confirms that the identification of psammomatous calcifications within a cervical lymph node is metastatic disease.

Example: Patient had a thyroid lobectomy and level VI neck node excision in August 2022. The final diagnosis is multifocal papillary carcinoma of the thyroid, as well as rare psammomatous calcifications only in the resected node. The pathologist notes that “psammoma bodies only” in lymph nodes is not well defined, and while indolent, they do indicate capacity for lymphatic spread and are pN1a.

Should thyroid primaries with cervical node psammomatous calcifications get captured in EOD Regional Nodes category as it is in the AJCC pN staging?

The 2023 SEER Manual, Appendix C 2023 Breast Surgery Codes, note reads: 

SEER Note: Assign code A760 for a more extensive bilateral mastectomy. Assign code 0 in Surgical Procedure of Other Site (NAACCR #1294). For a simple bilateral mastectomy, assign code A410 with code 1 in Surgical Procedure of Other Site (NAACCR #1294).

In the 2023 STORE Manual, these notes are not mentioned and we are instructed not to code surgery to other site. Other education related to 2023 breast coding provided by NAACCR states to not code surgery to other site. 

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

The patient was diagnosed with a biopsy-proven 12/2020 LUL SCC treated with radiation only, followed by a right hilar lymph node biopsy in 07/2022, that proved “metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma” per pathology and treated with radiation, followed by a biopsy-proven 12/2022 RLL SCC to be treated with immunotherapy only. The imaging never definitively identified a lung tumor that can be assumed to be a primary adenocarcinoma tumor.  In 06/2022, a PET scan only described a “strongly PET positive Rt inferior hilar LN vs infrahilar pulmonary mass,” as well as the subsequently biopsy-proven SCC in the RLL (12/2022 SCC primary). The biopsy path indicates this was a right hilar lymph node metastasis and does not indicate this is an infrahilar pulmonary mass. No other PET positive pulmonary lesions were seen at the time.

The oncologist’s assessment indicates the right hilar node was the only positive finding on the biopsy, and it was unclear if this right hilar node metastasis was from the left lung or if the primary was “not detectable.” The oncologist summarized this as a LUL lung lesion radiated for SCC, a right hilar lesion radiated for adenocarcinoma, and a RLL lung lesion on pathology found to be SCC.

Should the interval occurring metastatic adenocarcinoma be accessioned as a separate lung, NOS primary based on the histology difference? While the Solid Tumor Rules do not apply to metastasis, the oncologist did treat these three malignancies separately and does not indicate the hilar lymph node metastasis was felt to be from either SCC primary.

This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease. This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500. Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells). Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant. Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant. This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category). Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field? In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)?

2021-Right pleural fluid:  Negative for carcinoma.

5/18/2021: Right iliac crest bone marrow core biopsy, aspirate smear, clot section and peripheral blood smear:  Hypercellular bone marrow, morphological findings are suspicious for a myeloproliferative neoplasm. Flow Cytometry: Slight immunophenotypic abnormalities of the myeloid cells. No abnormal B cell, T cell, or NK cell populations identified. Normal female karyotype. KARYOTYPE: 46,XX[20]. Negative for deletion of 13q14.3 (D13S319) by FISH. Negative for deletion of 13q34 (LAMP1) by FISH. Negative for hyperdiploidy involving chromosome 9 by FISH. Negative for t(9;22)(q34;q11.2) by FISH. Negative for deletion of the EGR1 gene on 5q31 by FISH. Negative for monosomy 5 by FISH. Negative for deletion of 7q31 by FISH. Negative for monosomy 7 by FISH. Negative for deletion of 20q12 by FISH. Negative for trisomy of chromosome 8 by FISH.

6/4/21-Left adrenal; biopsy: poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Immunohistochemical stains show the neoplastic cells to be negative for CK7, TTF-1 and p63. Negative CK7 and TTF-1 would argue against a lung primary. Correlation with clinical and radiological findings is advised.

We are unable to contact the provider.

Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2.

All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule.

Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies?

ICD-O-3 tells us that perianal skin is C445 and we do not capture basal or squamous cell skin cancers in our registry. The AJCC manual stages perianal skin cancers within 5 cm of the anus with the anus chapter.  We cannot AJCC stage them as an anus if we are not capturing them as C445.  I realize we do not code a site in order to stage. We have been following the reportability rules and not capturing. Is this correct? I do not see this addressed in the new Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.