SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.

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.

The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table.

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

The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza.

No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or is this the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database?

It is unclear if code 300 is appropriate, since technically the fissure is comprised of pleura, involvement of the fissure appears to imply a tumor that is no longer localized.

An argument could be made for code 400, since the term traverses could be interpreted as crossing into adjacent lobe, however the lower lobe is not mentioned in this scan.

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not.

In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)?

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?

Is this histologic terminology synonymous with 8071/2 Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia?

Per the 7/20/2018 updates to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology list, the reportability flag was changed from N to Y for Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as well as Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia, both 8071/2. It appears that both SINQ 20180020 and the second half of SINQ 20160069 are no longer valid and should be deleted.