SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting?

The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document.

In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority.

Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not?

Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.

A question was posted to CAnswer forum 9/26/18 and answered stating that 8046 is not on the AJCC list of histologies for the lung chapter in the 8th edition. If the final diagnosis on the pathology report is just NSCLC, NOS with no subtype/variant, what histology/solid tumor rule would I use? In this situation, I am not able to query the pathologist. Would I code the histology to 8010 as per AJCC post?

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

Examples

Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report

Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)

Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade.

The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.

The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.