SEER Inquiry System - Search

10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion).

12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas).

4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis.

Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior?

SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6?

The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries).

Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)?

How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)?

Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned.

Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case?

Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.”

Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case?

The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids contain notes that say beginning 1/1/2022, keratinizing or non-keratinizing SCCs, HPV positive or HPV negative, are coded 8085 or 8086, respectively, for sites listed in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 only.

Table 5 introductory section also states for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward: “When the diagnosis is a subtype/variant of squamous cell carcinoma and HPV status is also noted, code the subtype/variant.” This latter instruction is also included in Other Sites Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as a “Penis Coding Note.”

Do these instructions ONLY apply to sites on those tables (and only to Penis or to Scrotum also in Table 23)? How should we code HPV-related keratinizing/non-keratinizing or other subtype/variant SCCs, for sites NOT on those tables, given the fact that only the more common histologies are listed in the Solid Tumor tables?  For example, we recently reviewed a case with HPV-positive basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (C21.0).

Patient was diagnosed in July 2022 with biopsy confirmed left kidney renal cell carcinoma. Initially, partial nephrectomy was planned for February 2023 but canceled at the last moment due to the patient’s “history of narcotic use.” The details of that cancellation were otherwise unclear. It appears the treatment plan was changed due to patient non-compliance.

Patient then had cryoablation of the tumor in May of 2023. Subsequent imaging in October found residual tumor, but no disease progression was noted. Again, additional ablation was offered but patient decided on surgical treatment which did not occur until December 2023.

Is the cryoablation second course due to a change of plan if there is no disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure?

If the cryoablation is first course treatment, then would the partial resection also be first course treatment because it was documented as the treatment plan?

Patient was diagnosed March 2023 with a neuroendocrine tumorlet of the rectum measuring 0.8 mm via excisional biopsy during colonoscopy.

Prior SINQ 20160011 (stomach specific) indicates microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size.

Is the current rectal tumor a reportable gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor if it is less than 5 mm (i.e., is a neuroendocrine tumorlet equivalent to a microcarcinoid)?

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?

There are multiple possible entries (rows) for a tumor with a neuroendocrine component and non-neuroendocrine component, but these rows do not specify which primary sites are applicable. Row 1 (Combined small cell carcinoma, 8045) seems applicable to a prostate primary, but not to a GI primary since GI primaries are now generally referred to as MiNENs (mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine tumors), but Table 2 does not provide any instructions regarding how to determine the difference between 8045 and 8154 (or 8244).

For SEER Workshop Case 03 (mixed prostate case), many users selected 8154 or 8244 as the mixed histology code per Table 2, but these histology codes are not listed as applicable in Table 3 (Prostate Histologies). Per the WHO Blue Books, these histologies are not listed as applicable to the prostate.

How are registrars to determine the correct mixed code without site designations, especially if they don't have access to the WHO Blue Book or to a pathologist who may be able to clarify the codes?

The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3).

However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module.

We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module?

We would like to confirm that the correct histology code is 9431/1 per ICD-O-3.2, as the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Manual lists the histology code as both 9431/1 (pages 301 and 303 of the combined manual), but also shows it as a synonym for 9421/1 – Diffuse astrocytoma, MYB- or MYBL1 altered (page 304).

The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.”

Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist.