SEER Inquiry System - Search

As a general rule, the surgeon is usually in a better position to determine the site of origin compared to the pathologist. The surgeon sees the tumor in its anatomic location, while the pathologist is often using information given to him/her by the surgeon and looking at a specimen removed from the anatomic landmarks. However, when a pathologist is looking at an entire organ, such as the pancreas, he/she may be able to pinpoint the site of origin within that organ.

In the case of pancreas body vs. neck, the neck is a thin section of the pancreas located between the head and the body. It may be a matter of opinion whether a tumor is located in the "body" vs. the "neck." In the situation you describe, we would give preference to the surgeon and assign the code for body of pancreas, C251.

Rule M1 applies because we don't know if there are separate tumors or separate foci within a single tumor. This is a single primary coded 8140/3. The prostate rules will be reviewed for an addition to cover this situation.

1) Do not infer the percent of viable tumor if only percent of necrosis is provided. For the example, assign code 6 when Neoadjuvant therapy was completed and the treatment effect in the breast is stated only as “Present".

2) Do not use the residual cancer burden (RCB) score from the pathology report to code the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect field for breast cancer. We do not have a crosswalk from RCB to neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect.

RCB index is an accurate and reliable tool to assess patient prognosis. RCB is estimated from routine pathologic sections of the primary breast tumor site and the regional lymph nodes after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy. The data item Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect records information on the primary tumor only.

Document information in a text field in both examples.

Use the histology codes SCC, HPV-associated (8085/3) and SCC, HPV-independent (8086/3) only when HPV testing is done on that specimen.  Do not use previous HPV tests to code the histology.

Code as SCC, NOS (8070/3) in both examples as no HPV testing was performed on the LEEP procedure specimens that identified the SCC.

This case does not fall into the standard rules. WHO criteria for diagnosing pituitary adenoma have recently changed (per 5th Ed WHO CNS book) and we will likely see more PitNET’ s than pituitary adenomas in the future.  PitNET may be invasive or non-invasive but the likelihood of the pathologists providing this information is low. Since we don’t know if the 2018 adenoma was a PitNET based on current criteria or if it transformed to the malignant neoplasm, err on the side of caution and abstract a second primary per M5.

This issue is new, and we’ve received numerous questions concerning pathologist reviewing older cases of pituitary adenoma and reclassifying them as PitNET using the new criteria.

Assign 9380/1 for low grade glioma diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward and for low grade glioma diagnosed prior to 1/1/2018 assign code 8000/1 on the advice of our expert neuropathologists. The site/type combination of C71 _ and 9380/1 will flag histology/site/behavior edits which should be overridden.

Low grade glioma is an umbrella term or non-specific diagnosis, primarily seen on radiologic reports such as CT scans and MRIs. Often, the patient is actively followed with scans and surgical intervention delayed or not recommended. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, does not recognize this term and indicates that tissue diagnosis (including genetic testing) is needed to provide a specific diagnosis. Since biopsy of these “neoplasms” is not routinely done, a definitive diagnosis is not available. Literature searches yielded conflicting information with some stating low grade gliomas are malignant with an indolent clinical course while others felt they were benign. Until such time as WHO proposes a code for this neoplasm, our expert neuropathologists recommend coding glioma, NOS with borderline behavior 9380/1. 

Yes. DFSP with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth and DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2 are synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3).  Our expert pathologist also advises that DFSP with focal myxoid features is the same as DFSP, myxoid (8832/3).

Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular using the current Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, May 2023 Update, for cases diagnosed 01/01/2018 and forward in the examples provided.  The rule also notes to follow the H rules to determine the correct histology code when a mixture of behaviors is present in carcinoma, NST and lobular carcinoma. Rule M5 does not apply as the timeframe is less than 5 years in both examples.

The 2023 update for the Breast Solid Tumor Rules (released November 2022) states: The rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2.  Applicable Histology Rules have also been revised to reflect ICD-O-3.2 histology terminology and corresponding ICD-O codes.

For cases diagnosed in 2023 and later, Update to the current manual: Assign code 13 (Radioisotopes, NOS) in Radiation Treatment Modality--Phase I, II, III for PRRT.

We will make this change in the next version of the SEER Manual.

Assign histology as 9505/3.  WHO Classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) Tumors describe ganglioglioma as a well-diffferentiated and slow-growing glioneuronal neoplasm.  While WHO does not recognize the histology/behavior combination 9505/3, the 2021 CNS Solid Tumor Rules identify non-malignant tumors that have the potential of transforming to a malignant tumor (new primary).  Ganglioglioma (9505/1) is listed with the transformed histology and instructs us to code as anaplastic ganglioglioma (9505/3).