SEER Inquiry System - Search

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

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.

Regarding the answer to SINQ 20180093: This is a single primary; coded 8140/3 adenocarcinoma. In the biopsy and the two tumors found on lobectomy, the specific adenocarcinoma histologies are described as acinar predominant pattern, solid growth pattern and lepidic predominant pattern. You do not code a pattern, so rule M7 above applies and this is a single primary.

My question is based on Note 2 in Coding Multiple Histologies for lung cancers that says: Predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor. Predominant and majority are synonyms. Per the CAP protocol, the term predominant is acceptable for the following specific subtypes of adenocarcinoma. For these subtypes only, the word predominant is used to describe both the subtype and the grade of the tumor.

Example: Mastectomy specimen final diagnosis shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma including: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma (tumor #1, 1 cm, slices 6 and 7) and invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type (tumor #2, 1.2 cm, slices 9 and 10).

Summary Staging outlines, Tumor #1: Histologic Type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma. As well as, Tumor #2: Histologic type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type. Additional findings include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): presently approximately 3.3 cm, spanning slices 10-13.

The behavior of the solid papillary carcinoma component will affect the provisional histology of the first tumor (8523/3) per Rule H17 vs. 8500/3 per Rule H7). Based on the response, we can determine whether this represents a single or multiple primaries (single primary per M13 vs. multiple primaries per M14).

The Extent of Disease (EOD) Manual states: Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension documented. If the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease, code the extension based on the post-neoadjuvant information.

Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?

The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.

However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.

The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable?

Example: Operative report states, partial simple vulvectomy, anoscopy with normal-appearing clitoris, clitoral prepuce, bilateral labia majora, and labia minora. There is a 1.5 x 1 cm raised, hyperpigmented lesion which appears consistent with VIN 3 on the perineal body, just to the right of midline, and not touching the midline. It goes quite close to the anus but is not touching the anus.

Final diagnosis on resection is, Invasive squamous cell carcinoma arising in a background of high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN III) with the following features: Location: perineum. Focal invasion arising in setting of 1 cm area of VIN III.

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?