SEER Inquiry System - Search

We think this should be a single primary because the Solid Tumor rules do not apply to metastases. However, we are not sure whether or not the instructions outlined for prostate (SINQ 20180088, 20130221), that indicate we are to accession a new metastatic tumor only with a small cell neuroendocrine histology after an adenocarcinoma, also applies to lung primaries.

We are aware of a phenomenon in which lung adenocarcinoma cases treated with Erlotinib can transform to small cell, but do not know whether it impacts the number of reportable primaries.

Example: Posterior fossa tumor resection final diagnosis was medulloblastoma, WHO Grade IV. The diagnosis comment notes the current tumor resection reveals large irregular reticulin-free nodules with streams of neoplastic cells in a fibrillary background in association with narrow reticulin-rich internodular strands of poorly differentiated neoplastic cells. Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity. The diagnosis comment provided only one histology.

Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Manual, Malignant CNS, Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology instructions, an addendum or comment has priority over the final diagnosis. Although indicative is not listed on any ambiguous terminology list, is this an ambiguous diagnosis that must be ignored? Or does the diagnosis comment in this case provide a single, specific diagnosis of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity?

Lung Rule M14 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract a single primary. However, we were hoping for confirmation that a cancer (NOS) or malignancy (NOS) would not be a distinctly different histology that may qualify for Lung Rule M8. Currently, these histologic terms are not included in the Table 3 options or mentioned in the preceding notes.

12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2.

Histology 8130

01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin.

07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma.

Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used?

Is this histologic terminology synonymous with 8071/2 Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia?

Per the 7/20/2018 updates to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology list, the reportability flag was changed from N to Y for Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as well as Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia, both 8071/2. It appears that both SINQ 20180020 and the second half of SINQ 20160069 are no longer valid and should be deleted.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes Mullerian mixed tumor as the preferred term for histology code 8950 (previously malignant mixed Mullerian tumor/MMMT). This table also includes carcinosarcoma, NOS as the preferred term for histology code 8980. Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table nor the Implementation Guidelines address the long-standing issue of coding histology for diagnoses of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor.

These endometrial primaries are frequently diagnosed as both carcinosarcoma and MMMT. The questions regarding histology coding for carcinosarcoma and carcinosarcoma/MMMT of the endometrium date back to before the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, with at least three SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8950/3 (MMMT) for diagnoses of MMMT. SINQ has instructed registrars that MMMT is a synonym for carcinosarcoma and these tumors should be coded to 8980 (carcinosarcoma), not to 8950 (MMMT). The most recent SINQ is partly inconsistent with the others, indicating 8950 can be used if the tumor is only described as MMMT. The other SINQ entries state carcinosarcoma should be used as it is the preferred term for MMMT. (See SINQ 20061008, 20100009, 20180071.)

The most recent SINQ (20180071) specifically indicates: According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition, MMMT (8950/3) is now a synonym for carcinosarcoma (8980/3) even though it has a separate ICD-O code. The ICD-O code for MMMT is no longer in the WHO book. However, MMMT is in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table and is not stated to be obsolete or a synonym. Which is correct, the clarification in the SINQ or the 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table?

For a 2021 diagnosis of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor, how should registrars code the histology? Follow the previous SINQ entries and Rule H17 to code the histology to 8980 when the diagnosis includes both carcinosarcoma and MMMT? Do these previous SINQ entries still apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Insulinoma, NOS is reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the diagnosis of insulinoma is most frequently made with clinical correlation of the patient's clinical syndrome and serum hormone levels. Despite a pathological diagnosis of NET, this will clinically be stated as insulinoma based on the functional type of tumor. At the largest facility in our area, all pathology reports with a diagnosis of insulinoma over the last year only provide a pathological Final Diagnosis of NET (either G1 or G2), but elsewhere specify, Functional Type: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, functional. Correlation with Clinical Syndrome and Elevated Serum Levels of Hormone Product: Insulin-producing (Insulinoma).

For 2021 and later, it seems this should be accessioned as insulinoma (8151/3), but one cannot arrive at that histology using the current Other Sites (MP/H) H Rules. Following the existing rules, one would code the histology to NET, G1 or NET, G2 (8240 or 8249) per Rule H6. There are technically two specific histologies to consider: NET (either 8240 or 8249) and insulinoma, NOS (8151). Following the H Rules, Rule H6 instructs one to code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8240 or 8249).

Coding this histology to NET (8240 or 8249) does not seem to reflect the most accurate classification of this tumor, but applying the current rules, this is the only histology that can be coded. There is no current guideline in the Other Sites schema or the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines instructing us to ignore the pathological diagnosis of a NET for these tumors (even though insulinomas are NETs). The only SINQ that currently exists (SINQ 20150019) states the histology can be coded as either a NET or an insulinoma in these cases. How are registrars to consistently code histology for these tumors without a rule clarification?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Should the updated Note 5 from the Non-malignant CNS regarding optic nerve glioma also be incorporated into Note 6 for Malignant CNS rules (the pilocytic astrocytoma note)?

This was one of the major issues identified in the SEER*Educate Workshop. Registrars have demonstrated they do not consistently think to look at the Non-malignant CNS schema when they see the term glioma and continue to misclassify optic nerve gliomas as malignant.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor as a related term for histology code 8317 (Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type). However, this related term is not discussed in the implementation guidelines as being a new term/reportable tumor. The Solid Tumor Rules do not indicate a hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is reportable; however, if a registrar only looked at the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, it may seem as though this histology should be collected.

The term hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor was not included in the Solid Tumor Rules as a subtype/variant of RCC, or as an equivalent term for chromophobe RCC. There is a SINQ (20180047) that states not to report renal hybrid oncocytic tumor, despite the fact these tumors exhibit mixed features of both oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. For cases diagnosed 2021 and later, should the clarification in the SINQ apply? Or should the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table be used which indicates this is a reportable diagnosis? If the standard setters decided not to implement use of hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor for 2021, can clarification be added to the Solid Tumor Rules or Implementation Guidelines?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.