SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ 20200022 indicates that cases originally diagnosed as in situ do not have a new primary when a new invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed within 5 years. Should histology and/or behavior get updated for the in situ breast primary?

In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).

We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).

An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.

Lip has not been added to any of the site-specific histology tables, nor has any other instruction been provided for coding tumors in this site.

Coding histology for lip primaries is difficult because registrars do not know where to look first. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate one should use the tables first, but then do not inform registrars what table to use for a lip primary (i.e., a specific table, any table, no table).

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

The 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update includes papillary microcarcinoma (8341/3) as the preferred term for thyroid primaries (C739). However, there are multiple SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8341/3 for diagnoses of micropapillary carcinoma of the thyroid (including SINQ 20071076, 20081127, 20110027, 20150023, and 20180008).

SINQ 20150023 specifically indicates: Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1 cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma and codes histology to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct.

Does this clarification apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later? If WHO feels the term micropapillary still does not refer to a specific histologic type for the thyroid, why is 8341/3 listed as a preferred term for this morphology/site combination? For cases 2021 and later, should a diagnosis of Incidental papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (3 mm) in left lower pole, be coded as 8341/3 per the ICD-O-3.2, or as 8260/3 per clarification in multiple SINQ entries?

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

Histologic Type: HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. Overall, the morphology, immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing results support the diagnosis of an HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma. This entity has been described in the sinonasal region, where it behaves more indolently than its other salivary gland carcinoma counterparts (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma), with local recurrence but rare metastases.

Is an M rule needed to address multiple tumors and Note 2 in Table 3? Does Note 2 in Table 3 apply when multiple tumors exist and one tumor contains only ductal carcinoma?

The M Rules currently confirm that a metaplastic carcinoma (whether it is involved with ductal or lobular) and a separate ductal carcinoma are separate primaries because these histologies are on different rows in Table 3 (separate primaries per M14). There is no specific rule regarding metaplastic carcinomas in the Multiple Tumors (M Rules) module, so presumably, the presence of a separate ductal carcinoma is not lumped into Note 2 in Table 3 for metaplastic carcinoma.

However, the note is confusing when there are multiple tumors involved because it appears to the registrars there are two options for coding the histology. To some registrars, the rules indicate it does not matter if the tumor is predominantly ductal carcinoma as long as some percentage of metaplastic carcinoma is present, code histology to metaplastic carcinoma. For other registrars, the presence of solely a ductal carcinoma in a second tumor is a separate primary from the separate metaplastic carcinoma.

The M rules and Note 2 need to clarify this issue to promote consistency.

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

SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?

SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?

For example, a patient has a 2.6 cm breast tumor on MRI; a core biopsy measuring 0.7 cm is positive for infiltrating duct carcinoma. Rule #1 states "Use the largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment." However, Rule #9 seems to imply that size from an "incisional biopsy" takes precedence over imaging, even though it is known to be less than the entire tumor in size.

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.