SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Patient has a secretory carcinoma of minor salivary gland tissue (mammary analogue secretory carcinoma [MASC]) of the mucosal lower lip; it is unclear which table to use and how to arrive at the correct histology using the H Rules.

Rule H1 (code the histology when only one histology is present) states, Note 1: Use Tables 1-9 to code histology. There is no table that includes the lip. The correct histology should be 8502 which is listed in Table 6 (Tumors of Salivary Glands) however this does not correspond to minor salivary glands of the mucosal lip (site C003 per ICD-O-3 coding instruction).

The 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table does not include this histology, however Table 6 indicates code 8502 (secretory carcinoma) is a new code that was approved by IARC/WHO.

The ICD-O-3 only includes this histology as secretory carcinoma of breast. Therefore, in order to arrive at the correct histology, one must be aware of previous SINQ entries 20160036 and 20130003 that indicate secretory carcinoma (or MASC) is histology 8502. However, these are related to MP/H Rules, so registrars may be hesitant to apply this guideline to cases coded using Solid Tumor Rules.

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?

1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins?

2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell?

3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now.

Rule PH28 confirms the more specific histologies are ignored if this is truly a low grade B-cell lymphoma (i.e., non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS) since both MALT lymphoma and LPL are more specific types of low grade B-cell lymphomas. This leaves only a diagnosis of low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation to consider.

SINQ 20130033 states a low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation should be coded as 9680/3 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)). However, DLBCL is a high grade B-cell lymphoma, not a low grade B-cell lymphoma.

If the pathologist classifies this as a non-specific low grade B-cell lymphoma, and clarifies that this may represent a more specific type of low grade B-cell lymphoma (MALT lymphoma or LPL), should the histology be coded to a high-grade lymphoma (DLBCL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS?

This question involves positive cervical lymph nodes with an unknown primary site. The SEER Manual says under the coding instructions for Primary Site:

14. b.Use the NOS category for the organ system or the Ill-Defined Sites (C760-C768) if the physician advisor cannot identify a primary site.

Note: Assign C760 for Occult Head and Neck primaries with positive cervical lymph nodes.

Schema Discriminator 1: Occult Head and Neck Lymph Nodes is used to discriminate between these cases and other uses of C760. Does SEER agree with AJCC that cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are EBV+ should be coded to the nasopharynx and cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are p16+ should be coded to the oropharynx, if no primary site is identified?

IMPRESSION/PLAN: Patient is a previously healthy middle aged woman with a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). We will proceed with a neoadjuvant course of radiation and concurrent chemotherapy (5-FU) to maximize local regional control and survival, and hopefully facilitate a sphincter-sparing resection in the future. The primary tumor and the pelvic nodes at risk will receive 4500 cGy delivered over 25 treatments. The primary tumor will subsequently receive an additional 1080 cGy delivered over 5 treatments, for a cumulative dose of 580 cGy.

PATHOLOGY: Adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). The patient is referred by (dr) for a neoadjuvant course of chemoradiotherapy.

HPI: Patient presented recently with rectal bleeding and a change in bowel habits. Colonoscopy revealed an ulcerated mass located 4.0 cm above the anal verge. A biopsy was positive for invasive well-differentiated adenocarcinoma that arose from a tubular adenoma. A staging work-up demonstrated no evidence of metastatic disease.

Left frontal mass biopsy diagnosis comment states: Given the synaptophysin and patchy CD34 staining of these cells, the possibility of ganglioglioma and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma is raised. Astroblastoma and ependymoma were considered given the perivascular pseudorosettes, however GFAP staining is quite limited against these tumors. Reticulin stain shows limited perivascular reticulin staining however. Nevertheless, the necrosis, mitotic activity and elevated mitotic activity would point to a malignant neoplasm. Given the neural and limited GFAP staining, a generic classification of neuroglial is provided.

This is the only available information. Further clarification or discussion with the physician or pathologist is not possible. Therefore, is this diagnosis of neuroglial tumor equivalent to that described in SINQ 20091037?

According to the literature, CIC gene rearrangement sarcomas in young patients are soft tissue sarcomas with an aggressive clinical course and may have previously been grouped under the Ewing-like family of tumors or as undifferentiated round cell sarcomas. There is currently no guideline in the solid tumor rules for coding a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma. However, coding the histology to 8800 (sarcoma, NOS) seems unlikely to capture the more aggressive nature of these tumors. Can a more specific histology be coded?