SEER Inquiry System - Search

According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075).

Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3).

Example: Operative report documents a left breast skin sparing mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy procedure. Pathology report lists left axillary sentinel nodes in specimen A) with 0/2 nodes positive, and left breast mastectomy without axilla in specimen B) yielding an additional 0/2 intramammary nodes positive. Would the Scope of Regional Node Surgery be coded as 2 (SLN biopsy) to capture the intent of the sentinel node procedure only, or 6 (code 2 + 4) to capture the actual type and number of nodes removed?

SEER Coding and Staging Manual includes Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery instruction 4.b. which mentions assigning code 4 to intra-organ node removal. Similarly, there is instruction for coding SLN biopsy as code 2 and SLN biopsy with axillary dissection at the same time (code 6) or during separate procedures (code 7). However, it is not clear this combination code is how we should also capture an incidental intra-organ node removal.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%.

Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3.

Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML?

Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) lists Ewing sarcoma as a synonym for Peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor 9364. Presumably, this is to be used for the reportable malignant peripheral nerve tumors when diagnosed as pPNET or Ewing sarcoma. However, this patient has a type of central (or CNS) primitive neuroectodermal tumor (histology 9473). Table 3 does not list central primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET or CPNET) as a valid histology for CNS tumors.

While Table 3 does not list all the possible histologies for the CNS, it currently is not clear how one would arrive at the histology code for a CNS Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration, as this is recognized as a new entity for primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the CNS (i.e., PNET, histology 9473) per multiple journal articles. Ewing sarcoma family tumors include both peripheral PNET and central PNET tumors, but to code this histology as a peripheral PNET (9364) in this case seems incorrect when the primary tumor is stated to be of central nervous system origin, not peripheral nervous system origin.

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.

The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?

Left frontal mass biopsy diagnosis comment states: Given the synaptophysin and patchy CD34 staining of these cells, the possibility of ganglioglioma and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma is raised. Astroblastoma and ependymoma were considered given the perivascular pseudorosettes, however GFAP staining is quite limited against these tumors. Reticulin stain shows limited perivascular reticulin staining however. Nevertheless, the necrosis, mitotic activity and elevated mitotic activity would point to a malignant neoplasm. Given the neural and limited GFAP staining, a generic classification of neuroglial is provided.

This is the only available information. Further clarification or discussion with the physician or pathologist is not possible. Therefore, is this diagnosis of neuroglial tumor equivalent to that described in SINQ 20091037?

Appendix E1 of the 2018 SEER manual references a similar diagnosis as being reportable for vulva and vagina only. However, the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (4th ed) does include high grade penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a synonym for 8077/2.

1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins?

2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell?

3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now.