SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?

SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?

Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules instructions, Final Diagnosis and Staging Summary (synoptic report) have equal coding priority. However, it is unclear which takes priority, or if this should be a combination of components, when the histologies are two different specific histologic types per Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules Manual.

We received an edit error in SEER*DMS on the following site/histology (Orbit, NOS (C696)/9699/3) that involved an incorrect staging code being assigned to SS2018. The staging language is identical in AJCC, EOD and SS2018. SEER*RSA notes that SS2018 should be coded distant, but in the SS2018 manual, this language is noted Regional. Staging language is: Orbital adnexal lymphoma AND extraorbital lymphoma extending beyond the orbit to adjacent structures--Bone, Brain, Maxillofacial sinuses

12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2.

Histology 8130

01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin.

07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma.

Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used?

Is an M rule needed to address multiple tumors and Note 2 in Table 3? Does Note 2 in Table 3 apply when multiple tumors exist and one tumor contains only ductal carcinoma?

The M Rules currently confirm that a metaplastic carcinoma (whether it is involved with ductal or lobular) and a separate ductal carcinoma are separate primaries because these histologies are on different rows in Table 3 (separate primaries per M14). There is no specific rule regarding metaplastic carcinomas in the Multiple Tumors (M Rules) module, so presumably, the presence of a separate ductal carcinoma is not lumped into Note 2 in Table 3 for metaplastic carcinoma.

However, the note is confusing when there are multiple tumors involved because it appears to the registrars there are two options for coding the histology. To some registrars, the rules indicate it does not matter if the tumor is predominantly ductal carcinoma as long as some percentage of metaplastic carcinoma is present, code histology to metaplastic carcinoma. For other registrars, the presence of solely a ductal carcinoma in a second tumor is a separate primary from the separate metaplastic carcinoma.

The M rules and Note 2 need to clarify this issue to promote consistency.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Patient had a radical pharyngectomy showing a glossotonsillar sulcus tumor with high grade squamous cell carcinoma and adjacent high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma. The pathologist commented, the tumor is composed of high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma and high grade conventional-type squamous cell carcinoma that are immediately adjacent to one another. Given that the tumors are arising so close together and could represent a single neoplastic process with divergent morphologies, they are staged together.

Employing Solid Tumor Manual Rule M1 (single primary if unable to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors), it was determined that this should be reported as a single tumor because the pathologist referred to the case as both a tumor singular and tumors pleural. However, the Solid Tumor Manual Histology Rules for a Single Tumor do not appear to have an instruction for coding this histology combination.

7/8/16 Urinary bladder, biopsy: Non-invasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is not identified.

9/2/16 Urinary bladder, bladder tumor, transurethral resection: High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. No definite invasion identified. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is identified and not involved by tumor.

1/7/17 A\S\Bladder: Noninvasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Granulomatous cystitis, consistent with BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guerin) treatment. Lamina propria is not involved with tumor. Detrusor muscle is not identified.

4/4/17 Dome: Papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade. No evidence of invasion. Muscularis propria is not present.

Patient is clearly followed for at least a year but no further information until 19 months later, 11/14/18, when biopsy of lung indicates metastatic disease.

11/14/18 Lung, right lower lobe, mass, biopsy: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis results (CK7 positive, CK20 focally positive, P63 positive, GATA3 positive, TTF1 negative and NAPSIN-A negative) support the diagnosis

For example, chemotherapy and immunotherapy administered first, followed by surgery, then immunotherapy and hormone therapy after surgery. Or is code 4 used for two administrations of chemotherapy before surgery and two more courses after surgery?

The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.

The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?