SEER Inquiry System - Search

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual: Reportability – Reportable Diagnosis List indicates pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN II) (C250-C259) is reportable.

However, the ICD-O-3.2 lists “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II” and “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, low grade” as histology code 8148 with behavior of /0 (benign).

An 80-year-old post-menopausal female (status post hysterectomy for benign reasons) presents with a retroperitoneal mass on imaging. The pre-operative imaging shows the cervix and uterus are absent. Patient undergoes a robotic left salpingo-oophorectomy with biopsy of the retroperitoneal mass.

Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only.

Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context?

In the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update, the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma row in Table 2 was changed. The NOS histology became neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS (8246) and both large cell and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (8013 and 8041, respectively) became the subtype/variants. This change impacts Rule H4 but Rule H4 was not updated. Rule H4 still refers to small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma as being the NOS histology.

In the prior STR versions, it was clear the tumor in question would be coded as 8045 per Rule H4 and Table 2. Considering Rule H4 was not updated according to the changes for Table 2, does histology 8045 still apply to this diagnosis?

There is currently no way to arrive at a histology for this case. Does Rule H4, bullet 3 need to be updated to indicate, “subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma (does not apply to sarcoma)”?

The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3).

Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.”

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.

Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment.

If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected?

Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added?

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.

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?