SEER Inquiry System - Search

There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text.

Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090.  On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through.

SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions?

It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual.

Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000.

The path report reads: COMMENT: There is multifocal involvement throughout both bowel segments which combined represent a subtotal colectomy procedure. There are at least 11 tumors, all of which are histologically similar. Given the unusual gross appearance, a representative portion of the largest mass (hepatic flexure) was forwarded to _____ for flow cytometric evaluation. There is chronic active colitis in the background suggestive of idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease, specifically ulcerative colitis. However, no dysplasia is seen in multiple random sections of grossly benign large bowel. ADDENDUM from expert gastroenterologist: The carcinomas are poorly differentiated without specific histologic features but are consistent with colon primaries. These findings are consistent with an MLH1-deficient carcinoma. Given the background chronic active colitis consistent with ulcerative colitis, this likely represents colitis-associated neoplasia which can be associated with multifocality.

Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.

Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSCG) is a rare type of low-grade sweat gland carcinoma. Some journal articles indicate that most patients with EMPSCG have coexisting mucinous carcinomas, suggesting that EMPSCG is a precursor to invasive mucinous carcinoma of the skin. Sweat gland carcinoma has its own histology code per the ICD-O-3 (8400/3); should an endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma also be coded as 8400/3? If so, would the correct histology for the skin case above be mucinous carcinoma (8480/3) per Rule H17? Conversely, if the terms "mucin-producing" are referring to mucin-producing carcinoma, and not referring to the sweat gland carcinoma, would the histology be coded 8481/3 (mucin-producing carcinoma)?

The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ.  Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3):  161-169

A patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in 2010, and underwent a hepatectomy, and then received a donor liver. In 2014, HCC was discovered in the liver once again. This likely is a new primary, but there are no specific rules to cover this. There are many odd situations involving transplanted organs, many of which pose reportability and multiple primary problems.

The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?