SEER Inquiry System - Search

1.  The 2022 and 2023 SEER Program Coding Manuals state under Histologic Type ICD-O-3: Beginning with cases diagnosed 01/01/2022 forward, p16 test results can be used to code squamous cell carcinoma, human papilloma virus (HPV) positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086).

NAACCR 2023 Implementation Guidelines contain similar instructions on HPV histologies for cervix, vulva and vagina that are applicable back to 2022 (2021 for cervix).

The current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules state on the Histology tables for anus, cervix, vagina, vulva, and penis and scrotum: "p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV associated and HPV independent histologies." Since Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules apply to cases diagnosed 2023+, can p16 results only be used from 2023 onward, to code HPV-related histologies for primaries that fall under the Other Sites module? Or per the 2022 SEER Manual statement and NAACCR 2023 Implementation Guidelines, could a p16-confirmed HPV histology code also apply to a 2022 Other Sites case and if so, is that only for cervix, vulva, and vagina? Further complicating the matter are the 2024 ICD-O-3.2 update documents indicating these codes are valid 1/1/2024+ for the “Other Sites” penis and scrotum.

2.  Is using p16 testing for HPV-related histology codes ONLY allowed for sites in the Solid Tumor tables that contain the statements about p16 (Head & Neck Table 5, and the Other Sites tables noted above for anus, cervix, etc.)? Or could it apply to primary sites outside of those tables; for example, a 2022 pathology report from the ethmoid sinus C311 indicating an HPV-related histology based on p16 testing? The ICD-O-3 Annotated Histology lists include C310-C313 among the common site codes for 8085 and 8086. The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules “New for 2022” section and rule H1 Note 4 also mention that p16 can be used to code HPV histologies; these sections would seem to apply to all sites in that module, since only the more common histology codes are listed in the tables and if not, we are instructed to use ICD-O.

It appears there was some confusion about finding this new malignant HGAP tumor (2023+) code. If this is not a specific subtype/variant of astrocytoma, can clarification be added to the “New for 2023” entry for HGAP?

The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries).

Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)?

How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)?

Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned.

Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case?

Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.”

Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case?

We included this histology in SEER Workshop Case 12 and the histology coding accuracy was less than 40%. From emails we received, it is clear that registrars are unaware that the "somatic type malignancy" can vary but code 9084 applies when the diagnosis is teratoma WITH any non-germ cell tumor component. It may be helpful to add a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) to the Solid Tumor Manual.

There appears to be discrepant information in the 2024 (and prior) SEER manual regarding race coding when the patient is described only as Hispanic/Latina. Page 78 tells us to Code as 01 (White) when: b. There is a statement that the patient is Hispanic or Latino(a) and no further information is available

1. A person of Spanish origin may be any race; however, for coding race when there is no further information other than “Hispanic” or “Latino(a),” assign race as White as a last resort instead of coding unknown.

However, in Appendix D, under "Other Race descriptions", there is a statement that "If no further information is available, code as 99 Unknown." The list includes "Hispanic."

2012 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Right

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

2024 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Left

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

Additional comments in this pathology report state "The entire case was sent in consultation to an ophthalmic pathologist. [Pathologist] assigns a conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia (C-MIN) score of 2-3 due to the upward pagetoid migration of small, dendritic melanocytes. A C-MIN score of 2-3 is between low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL; C-MIN 2) and high-grade conjunctival intraepithelial lesion (HG-CMIL; C-MIN 3). The older terminology for this lesion would be primary acquired melanosis (PAM) with mild to focally moderate atypia."

This term does not appear in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM), Appendix E1 of the SPCSM, or Solid Tumor Rules (specifically rule H3) . 

Starting for cases diagnosed in 2024, the SPCSM manual no longer requires the data items for clinical and pathologic tumor size.  Instead, it appears to align with the CoC data item of Tumor Size Summary.  The two manuals contradict each other when it comes to coding tumor size summary for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) treated cancers.  

STORE states: "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999."  

2024 SPCSM states "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999." It continues to state     

 12. Assign code 000 when…. (a) no residual tumor is found…(i) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and the resection shows no residual tumor &

14. Assign code 999 when...(d) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and resection was performed. Do not use a post-neoadjuvant size to code pathologic tumor size; however, you may use the clinical tumor size if available

It seems that we will lose the value of the tumor size summary if we code 000 when NAC is administered and there is no residual disease. 

Example: Patient has a 90 mm triple positive breast tumor and is treated with neoadjuvant TCHP (docetaxel/carboplatin/ trastuzumab/pertuzumab). After completing neoadjuvant therapy, the patient has a mastectomy with no residual disease noted on the final pathology report. 

Using the 2024 SPCSM instructions, code 000 for Tumor Size Summary instead of 090 for the clinical tumor size of 90 mm tumor noted before NAC was administered. This has the potential to affect data analysis, research, and clinical trial accrual.

The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.”

Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist.