SEER Inquiry System - Search

There is one tumor in the left lung that is acinar adenocarcinoma, 8551/3, and two tumors in the right lung, one of which is 8551/3 and a separate one that is mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253/3.

3/21/18- left robotic video assisted thoracoscopy with left lower lobe lobectomy: 2.5 cm adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, margins negative

11/3/18- right upper lobe lobectomy: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, 1.7 cm, invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, 0.6 cm, margins negative

If you start by comparing the 8551/3 left lung tumor to the 8253/3 right lung tumor, M6 applies and these would be separate primaries (seq 01 and seq 02). How would we handle the third tumor, 8551/3, in the right lung? Seq 01: 3/21/18- left lung primary 8551/3 Seq 02: 11/3/18- right lung primary 8253/3 Is the right lung tumor 8551/3 a third primary, and if so, which M rule applies? I cannot find a rule that seems to fit completely. Rule M6 may apply if you were comparing the right 8551/3 tumor to the seq 02 8253/3 tumor. But how would you know to use the seq 02 histology code 8253/3 or seq 01 histology code 8551/3 for the comparison? I think M9 was designed for situations where you have multiple tumors involving both lungs but they didn't biopsy all of them. Is that correct? If so, then we would be able to bypass M9. Would M11 apply since we already took care of two of the tumors with rule M6? If M11 doesn't apply, it seems like you would get to M14.

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.

There is a discrepancy between Notes 3 and 6 in the schemas Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma for EOD Primary Tumor. Note 3 describes extension/discontinuous metastasis to the pelvic sites (code 450) and includes the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum since these are all pelvic sites. However, Note 6 also includes rectosigmoid and sigmoid colon.

Note 6 is describing extension/discontinuous metastasis to the abdominal sites (600-750), so it should include rectosigmoid or sigmoid colon (since those are pelvic sites). Note 6 indicates, Intestine, large (except rectum). In the previous Collaborative Stage, the corresponding note used to also include: except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum.

Did sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid get removed from the list here? That is, should Note 6 read, Intestine, large (except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, rectum)? Involvement of the sigmoid, rectosigmoid, or rectum via peritoneal seeding/metastasis is consistent with T2b disease and would correlate with code 450 (pelvic sites), not codes 600-750 (abdominal sites). Those codes only correlate with T3 and greater disease (i.e., peritoneal seeding/metastasis of the abdomen).

There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology.

The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3).

Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost.

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?

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.

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 1: Operative report states the surgery is a right breast simple mastectomy. There is no lymph node removal documented or attempted; however, a single incidental intramammary node is found in the final pathology results. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

CAnswer Forum states to code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery as 0 (No regional lymph nodes removed), see Scope LN surgery, incidental LN found on path, Breast.

However, SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction states: Code the removal of intra-organ lymph nodes in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. Example: Local excision of breast cancer. Specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node. Assign code 4 (1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed).

The STORE 2018 Manual does not provide instruction for incidental nodes specifically, but does appear to be focused on capturing procedural intent.

Example 2: Patient has bilateral breast primaries. Operative report states the surgery is bilateral simple/skin-sparing mastectomies with bilateral sentinel node biopsies and immediate reconstruction. However, pathology shows that the left breast specimens are labeled: (a) Left breast mastectomy, (b) Left sentinel lymph node biopsy, (c) Additional left lymph nodes biopsy, and (d) Left axillary contents biopsy. The total nodes removed for this case are: 2/2 positive SLN, 0/1 positive intramammary nodes, 1/1 positive additional lymph node, and 3/3 positive axillary contents nodes. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

The SEER Manual states, Generally, this rule is invoking the Matrix principle in the ICD-O-3.

We are aware this is not the same as a VIN III or an adenoma with microinvasion because those tumors have a valid histology code listed in the ICD-O-3. The terms or or do not have a valid ICD-O-3 code to apply the Matrix principle.

If severe dysplasia is felt to be consistent with a carcinoma in situ, then a severe dysplasia with microinvasion would be reportable as 8010/3. But in the U.S., we do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ).

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.