SEER Inquiry System - Search

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

There is a discrepancy in the SEER and STORE manual definition of code 2 for Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site. STORE includes progression of tumor prior to planned surgery as part of the definition for code 2, but the SEER Manual does not. The progression statement is included in the SEER Manual (2018 and 2021) for Reason for No Radiation, but not for Reason for No Surgery.

11/24/20 Adnexal mass, cyst fluid: Positive for malignant cells. Clusters of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells. Groups of inhibin-negative, CK7-positive epithelial cells consistent with serous borderline tumor cells. Peritoneal washing: Positive for malignant cells. Small groups of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells.

A. Left ovarian mass: Adult granulosa cell tumor (AGCT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1c3 pNX - Serous borderline tumor (SBT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1a pNX. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.

B. Right ovary: - Serous cystadenofibroma of ovary. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.

C. Left pelvic wall nodule: Fibro-calcified nodule, consistent with necrotic appendix epiploica.

D. Uterus (hysterectomy): Uterine leiomyomas. Endosalpingiosis of uterine serosa and paracervical tissue. Atrophic endometrium.

Note: The left ovarian mass is involved by a combined adult granulosa cell tumor and a serous borderline tumor. The AGCT mainly involves the thick-walled cystic area while the SBT the thin-walled cyst/s. The 2 neoplastic elements do, however, demonstrate areas of intimate and close intermingling. From the current literature, it appears that, based on FOXL2 mutation, the AGCT component of combined AGCT and ovarian epithelial tumors is either a true neoplastic processes or an AGCT- like proliferation morphologically indistinguishable from AGCT. To further evaluate the nature of the AGCT component, a FOXL2 analysis is in progress and an addendum will follow.

Since the synoptic report and final diagnosis are equal in priority, and the Solid Tumor Rules tell us to code the more specific histology, would this be coded to signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, 8490/3, even though the pathologist used features in the final diagnosis? There is no histology adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell features on the CAP Protocol, so the pathologist may check off the next closest histology " signet ring cell carcinoma " which would not be truly representative of the actual histology. Final Diagnosis: Proximal colon, segmental resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, with signet ring cell features. Synoptic Report A: Colon and Rectum - Resection Specimen Procedure: Right hemicolectomy, Tumor Site: Right (ascending) colon, Histologic Type: Signet-ring cell carcinoma, Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated.

While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755.

Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755.

Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.