SEER Inquiry System - Search

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?

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?

Example: Posterior fossa tumor resection final diagnosis was medulloblastoma, WHO Grade IV. The diagnosis comment notes the current tumor resection reveals large irregular reticulin-free nodules with streams of neoplastic cells in a fibrillary background in association with narrow reticulin-rich internodular strands of poorly differentiated neoplastic cells. Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity. The diagnosis comment provided only one histology.

Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Manual, Malignant CNS, Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology instructions, an addendum or comment has priority over the final diagnosis. Although indicative is not listed on any ambiguous terminology list, is this an ambiguous diagnosis that must be ignored? Or does the diagnosis comment in this case provide a single, specific diagnosis of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity?

10/4/2018 Frozen Section Diagnosis: Brain tissue with atypical cells and inflammatory cells, defer to permanents for further evaluation. Note: Tissue for flow cytometry is submitted. Final Diagnosis: Preliminary Diagnosis: Brain Tumor, Biopsy: Neoplasm, suggestive of lymphoma (see comment). Comment: The tumor exhibits nuclear atypia and increased mitosis. The tumor cells are immunologically positive for LCA and with very high ki67 labeling index. GFAP and synaptophysin are not expressed by tumor cells. The above suggests a lympho-proliferative process. This case is forwarded to the hematopathology service of this department for further evaluation. The final diagnosis report will be issued by the hematopathologist as an addendum.

Supp Rpt Add Addendum Diagnosis: The brain biopsy showed brain tissue large lymphoid cell infiltrate. Additional immunohistochemical stains are performed. The large cells are positive for CD20, BCL2, BCL6 (subset), MUM1, and CD30, negative for CD3, CD5, and CD10. Staining for c-MYC is negative. Ki-67 positive large cells are approximately 18%. EBER is strongly positive by ISH. Diagnosis: Brain lesion, biopsy: EBV+ Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma. Addendum Comment: The concurrent flow cytometric study showed monoclonal lambda-positive B-cells without out CD5 and CD10 expression, consistent with B-cell lymphoma.

Patient has a resection labeled as: Spine, designated intramedullary lesion. The Final Diagnosis is: Melanocytic neoplasm with features most consistent with primary intramedullary melanocytoma. The Diagnosis Comment states: The overall immunophenotypic and morphologic impression is a primary central nervous system melanocytoma.

The ICD-O-3 lists melanocytoma, NOS histology code as 8726/0, but does not provide a site-associated code. If the ICD-O-3 is used, the histology would be 8726/0 and the primary site presumably would be C720 since the tumor was specifically described as being intramedullary (i.e., within the spinal cord medulla).

Table 6 (Solid Tumor Rules, Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) does not list either an intramedullary melanocytoma or melanocytoma (NOS). However, Table 6 does include meningeal melanocytosis 8728/0 and meningeal melanocytoma 8728/1. If Table 6 is used and the histology is coded 8728/1, then the primary site would presumably be C701 per the ICD-O-3 site-associated listing for this histology (C709).

SINQ 20160023 and the Solid Tumor Rules indicate NET G1 (or well differentiated NET) is coded as 8240 and NET G2 is coded as 8249.

Clarification regarding grade coding in the CAnswer Forum indicates well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor refers to the histologic type, and not the grade. Therefore, the term well differentiated is ignored for the purpose of grade coding.

Neither of these sources clarifies how to code histology for a tumor diagnosed as well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.

We previously downloaded the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update tables which included the note, not reportable for 2018, for both of these terms (with an updated histology 8071/2). SINQ 20180020 confirms differentiated penile and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia are NOT reportable for 2018 (as does 20160069). However, when looking at the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update table today, the not reportable for 2018 comment has been removed and it appears these two terms are reportable. Which is correct?

Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded.

Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung.

Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant.

No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options.

Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0.

Example: Operative report documents a left breast skin sparing mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy procedure. Pathology report lists left axillary sentinel nodes in specimen A) with 0/2 nodes positive, and left breast mastectomy without axilla in specimen B) yielding an additional 0/2 intramammary nodes positive. Would the Scope of Regional Node Surgery be coded as 2 (SLN biopsy) to capture the intent of the sentinel node procedure only, or 6 (code 2 + 4) to capture the actual type and number of nodes removed?

SEER Coding and Staging Manual includes Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery instruction 4.b. which mentions assigning code 4 to intra-organ node removal. Similarly, there is instruction for coding SLN biopsy as code 2 and SLN biopsy with axillary dissection at the same time (code 6) or during separate procedures (code 7). However, it is not clear this combination code is how we should also capture an incidental intra-organ node removal.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?