SEER Inquiry System - Search

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 code 1 in Surgical Procedure of Other Site (NAACCR #1294) when a simple bilateral mastectomy is performed for a single tumor involving both breasts. This statement was inadvertently omitted from the STORE manual and will be added back in: For single primaries only, code removal of contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item #1294) or Surgical Procedure/Other Site at This Facility (NAACCR Item #674).

The information presented by NAACCR was intended to be consistent with what is in the SEER manual. It may have been misuderstood.

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.

Do not report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the ovary (8460/2, C569) as borderline ovarian tumors are not reportable. This applies to cases 2018 and later.

Do report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the testis as stated in SINQ 20220032. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later.

Abstract two primaries using rule M4 of the Colon rules or rule M13 of Other Sites: 1. Invasive adenocarcinoma of distal rectum and 2. Paget disease of the anal mucosa / perianal skin (determine site of origin and code primary site accordingly). The rectum and the anus are separate sites and the histologies differ in each site.

The WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, states that in addition to secondary anal Paget disease arising from anal canal adenocarcinoma, or rarely, adenoma without documented invasive disease, secondary Paget cells may be contiguous with the underlying neoplasm or manifest at different at sites distinctly away from it (with skip lesions).  Document the details in the appropriate text fields.

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).

Assign 8077/2 for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, VIN 3 in this case.  The WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states that squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) of the vulva are also known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, HPV-associated.  The term squamous cell carcinoma in situ is not recommended.

This is reportable as 9591/3, B-cell lymphoma, NOS.All diagnoses in the differential are all B-cell lymphomas. The pathologist knows it a B-cell lymphoma but has not determined the subtype. If at a later time a specific lymphoma is determined, update the histology code accordingly. 

Code Primary Site as Overlapping lesion of cervix uteri (C538). The 2023 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Primary Site Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors #4 says to code the last digit of the primary site code to ‘8’ when a single tumor overlaps an adjacent subsite(s) of an organ and the point of origin cannot be determined. This is also supported by the ICD-O-3, 3rd edition, note in the Topography section that states: In categories C00 to C809, neoplasms should be assigned to the subcategory that includes the point of origin of the tumor. A tumor that overlaps the boundaries of two or more subcategories and whose point of origin cannot be determined should be classified to subcategory ‘8.”

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.