SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease?

A patient had posterior cervical lymphadenopathy status post biopsy and subsequent lymph node dissection showed metastatic melanoma in 2018. Workup showed no skin lesions or primary site. Final diagnosis is melanoma of unknown primary (unknown if cutaneous or non-cutaneous). Should C760 be used as the primary site for this case since the histology codes of 8700-8790 are included in the Cervical Lymph Nodes and Unknown Primary Tumors of the Head and Neck schema in SEER*RSA?

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor as a related term for histology code 8317 (Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type). However, this related term is not discussed in the implementation guidelines as being a new term/reportable tumor. The Solid Tumor Rules do not indicate a hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is reportable; however, if a registrar only looked at the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, it may seem as though this histology should be collected.

The term hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor was not included in the Solid Tumor Rules as a subtype/variant of RCC, or as an equivalent term for chromophobe RCC. There is a SINQ (20180047) that states not to report renal hybrid oncocytic tumor, despite the fact these tumors exhibit mixed features of both oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. For cases diagnosed 2021 and later, should the clarification in the SINQ apply? Or should the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table be used which indicates this is a reportable diagnosis? If the standard setters decided not to implement use of hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor for 2021, can clarification be added to the Solid Tumor Rules or Implementation Guidelines?

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

While we recognize the Heme DB has been the correct source for histology coding for heme and lymphoid neoplasms dating back to 2010, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines appear to provide incorrect coding instructions. Histologies 9670/3, 9728/3, 9729/3 and 9836/3 are listed in Table 3 - Deleted ICD-O codes in ICD-O-3.2.

While we recognize these histologies have been included in this Table because they have now been deleted, it is unclear whether the Comments regarding their use listed in the 4th column of the Table is correct. For each of these histologies, the comment states the histology listed in the 1st column (ICD-O-3/3.1) should be used prior to 2021. For example, for histology 9670/3, the comment states: Cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2021 use code 9670/3. Cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward use code 9823/3. However, each of these histology codes have been obsolete for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. If registrars were following the Heme DB and Heme Manual instructions (the appropriate coding source for these neoplasms), these histologies would not have been used in a decade.

Should the Comments column in Table 3 be updated? Or should a Note follow the Table indicating registrars should not use these histology codes for cases diagnosed after 1/1/2010, and these histology codes have been deleted for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021? It seems misleading to indicate any of these are valid histology codes for a 2010-2020 diagnosis when the Heme DB confirms these histology codes only apply to cases diagnosed prior to 2010.

Histologic Type: HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. Overall, the morphology, immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing results support the diagnosis of an HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma. This entity has been described in the sinonasal region, where it behaves more indolently than its other salivary gland carcinoma counterparts (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma), with local recurrence but rare metastases.

According to the literature, PMH is a low-grade malignant vascular neoplasm of different tissue planes including skin and soft tissue. However, the references also state: PMH is a cutaneous tumor that behaves in an indolent fashion. There is no indication that this was a malignant diagnosis.

12/3/18 Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Superficial squamous epithelium demonstrating hyperkeratosis and fragments of keratin debris, no tumor seen.

Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

NOTE: The submitted immunohistochemical slides were reviewed. Positive and negative controls reacted appropriately. The tumor cells demonstrate immunoreactivity to CK AE1/AE3 and CK7. The CD31 immunoreactivity described in the report cannot be confirmed as only the positive control is submitted for review. The tumor cells are negative for desmin, CD45, CD68, S-100, CD34, SMA, CD20, and HHV8. The proliferative index via Ki-67 is approximately 10%. The morphology (described below) and immunohistochemistry performed are compatible with a pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

12/4/18 Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Foot, left bone lesion, biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

Note: The patient's imaging findings were reviewed in conjunction with this case, revealing numerous lytic lesions of the tibia, fibula, talus, tarsal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones. Additionally, as per the medical record, also reviewed in conjunction with this case, there are lesions of the skin. Thus, an extensive immunohistochemical panel was performed in an attempt to support the morphologic findings in this case, which were morphologically similar to the patient's skin biopsy. The tumor cells demonstrate strong immunoreactivity to pancytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3) and vimentin with moderate immunoreactivity to Fli-1. The tumor cells demonstrate weak immunoreactivity to epithelial membrane antigen. INI-1 is retained. There is focal immunoreactivity to CD31 although this is limited to the edges of the tissue fragments. The tumor cells are negative for HHV-8, CD34, smooth muscle actin, CK8/18, desmin, CD99, and Bcl-2. The combination of morphologic (see below for microscopic description) and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma. Fresh tissue was submitted for karyotype analysis at the time of intraoperative consultation; however, it revealed only a normal appearing male karyotype. Thus, molecular confirmation was sought. The original slides and a paraffin block were submitted for FOSB rearrangement analysis, as pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is known to have recurrent rearrangements with FOSB. Additional immunohistochemistry performed at (FACILITY) demonstrating immunoreactivity for ERG, supporting a vascular origin for this neoplasm. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated that 13% of the cells examined show FOSB rearrangement. While this FISH probe is for investigational purposes, the above findings support the diagnosis of pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

CT a/p read by radiologist shows: "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney." Follow-up MRI a month later reads "right kidney cystic lesion with enhancing mural nodule concerning for cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." Urologist consult used the same wording of "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion" and "concerning for renal cell carcinoma." Treatment discussed but due to patient health status recommended repeat imaging. Repeat CT few months later reads: "cystic right renal lesion with enhancing nodule similar to most recent prior and suspicious for cystic RCC."

Though "suspicious for cystic RCC" per latest imaging is reportable, Bosniak 4 is "clearly malignancy, ~100% malignant" by definition, so is the case actually reportable with the first CT a/p date as date of diagnosis?

11/18/2019 Left 1st Digit/Thumb Biopsy: Atypical Melanocytic Proliferation consistent with Early Acral Lentiginous Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. (Not a reportable diagnosis for 2019.)

12/5/2019 Left 1st Digit Shave Biopsies: Malignant Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive.

1/15/2020 Started Aldara (treatment plan: use for ~3 months then Mohs/excision, but due to COVID could not get resection until 7/2020).

7/29/2020 Left Thumb Excision: Residual Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. Treatment Plan: re-excision.

8/6/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision: Atypical Lentiginous Melanocytic Proliferation at the 12-2 margin may represent the advancing edge of melanoma in situ. (8/19/2020 Plan to treat the 12-2 margin as positive with in situ; plan for re-excision).

8/20/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision & Left Nail Plate Excision: Malignant Acral Lentiginous Melanoma with extensive melanoma in situ. Breslow 1.3mm. Margins Positive. Nail plate & bed epithelium with hemorrhage and a mild increase in melanocyte density likely represent melanoma in situ.

9/4/2020 Left thumb partial amputation & Left axillary Sentinel Lymph Node Excision: Residual Malignant Melanoma in situ. 0/3 sentinel nodes positive.

In Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS/ NST, and Subtypes/Variants), the entry for papillary carcinoma, NOS includes a change in column 3 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules that conflicts with the H Rules. It is not accounted for in the change log. No explanation is offered as to why this change was made. This is a major change because encapsulated papillary carcinoma is frequently associated with carcinoma NST, and we have not been collecting these as such.

Encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504) in column 3 now includes an indented entry, with invasive carcinoma, NST/invasive duct carcinoma 8504/3. However, most encapsulated papillary carcinomas are in situ or there is no definitive statement of invasive encapsulated papillary carcinoma, so when in situ and invasive tumors are present, we are instructed to code the invasive histology (which would be the invasive carcinoma (NST), 8500/3). How are registrars to arrive at the correct histology without a new H rule or a clarification regarding this update being documented in the change log?

Does the same change/addition apply to solid papillary carcinoma? These are often also associated with carcinoma, NST. Again, without an explanation regarding the change mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the change was made.

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