SEER Inquiry System - Search

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."

Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea.

11-17-2022 Blood smear:  CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3  (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations).

The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing:  A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary.

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.

The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids contain notes that say beginning 1/1/2022, keratinizing or non-keratinizing SCCs, HPV positive or HPV negative, are coded 8085 or 8086, respectively, for sites listed in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 only.

Table 5 introductory section also states for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward: “When the diagnosis is a subtype/variant of squamous cell carcinoma and HPV status is also noted, code the subtype/variant.” This latter instruction is also included in Other Sites Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as a “Penis Coding Note.”

Do these instructions ONLY apply to sites on those tables (and only to Penis or to Scrotum also in Table 23)? How should we code HPV-related keratinizing/non-keratinizing or other subtype/variant SCCs, for sites NOT on those tables, given the fact that only the more common histologies are listed in the Solid Tumor tables?  For example, we recently reviewed a case with HPV-positive basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (C21.0).

Lung cancer, 2022

12/1/2022 PET/CT showed destructive hypermetabolic bone lesions in right frontal and left posterior calvarium. Left posterior calvarium lesion involves portions of left parietal and temporal bones w/invasion of mastoid air cells.

1/4/2023 MRI Brain showed large destructive mass involving left posterior temporal calvarium that extends into left mastoid region and may invade left distal transverse sinus.

2/8/2023 Radiation Oncology follow-up note: MD states there are extensive calvarium metastasis with the left parietal lesion invading the brain causing edema and MS-like changes.

2/13/23 Radiation Oncology Final Letter- Patient was treated with 1 EBRT fraction aimed at brain/skull before enrolling in hospice.

The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3).

However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module.

We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module?

The accuracy rate for SEER Workshop Case 04 (a duodenal invasive adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp) was very low because Rule H13 was either being ignored or users were stopping at Rule H12 to code adenocarcinoma.

If the presence of an NOS histology in a polyp is still clinically relevant for the Other Sites module, this information will be missed due to the order of the H Rules, or the lack of clarification in Rule H12.

If a change is made to Rule H12 (Single Tumor: Invasive Only module), then changes must also be made to the Single Tumor: In Situ Only module and the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module because both these modules include the same polyp coding H Rule.

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) . 

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?