SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ 20160023 and the Solid Tumor Rules indicate NET G1 (or well differentiated NET) is coded as 8240 and NET G2 is coded as 8249.

Clarification regarding grade coding in the CAnswer Forum indicates well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor refers to the histologic type, and not the grade. Therefore, the term well differentiated is ignored for the purpose of grade coding.

Neither of these sources clarifies how to code histology for a tumor diagnosed as well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.

ICD-O-3 Rule H states to use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not stated in the diagnosis. This topography code should be ignored if the tumor arose in another site. For the following brain and central nervous system (CNS) examples, should the suggested sub-site codes be assigned based on the histology, or should the primary sites be coded as C719 (posterior fossa or suprasellar brain) since the only information available was a tumor in these non-specific sites?

Example 1: Resection of a posterior fossa tumor proved medulloblastoma, WNT-activated. Although medulloblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C716, cerebellum), the only information available is that this was a posterior fossa tumor (C719).

Example 2: Resection of a suprasellar brain tumor proved pineoblastoma. The pathologist labeled this as a brain tumor, suprasellar. Although pineoblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C753, pineal gland), the only information available is that this was a suprasellar brain tumor (C719).

It appears that the first Other Sites applicable rule is H16 (and Table 2) instructing the use of histology code 8323 (mixed cell adenocarcinoma). However, this really is not an adenocarcinoma tumor but is a mixed squamous and transitional cell carcinoma. The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update Table provides a new term for a but does not indicate whether that new term would also include a papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the cervix.

There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology.

The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3).

Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost.

Example 1: Operative report states the surgery is a right breast simple mastectomy. There is no lymph node removal documented or attempted; however, a single incidental intramammary node is found in the final pathology results. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

CAnswer Forum states to code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery as 0 (No regional lymph nodes removed), see Scope LN surgery, incidental LN found on path, Breast.

However, SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction states: Code the removal of intra-organ lymph nodes in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. Example: Local excision of breast cancer. Specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node. Assign code 4 (1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed).

The STORE 2018 Manual does not provide instruction for incidental nodes specifically, but does appear to be focused on capturing procedural intent.

Example 2: Patient has bilateral breast primaries. Operative report states the surgery is bilateral simple/skin-sparing mastectomies with bilateral sentinel node biopsies and immediate reconstruction. However, pathology shows that the left breast specimens are labeled: (a) Left breast mastectomy, (b) Left sentinel lymph node biopsy, (c) Additional left lymph nodes biopsy, and (d) Left axillary contents biopsy. The total nodes removed for this case are: 2/2 positive SLN, 0/1 positive intramammary nodes, 1/1 positive additional lymph node, and 3/3 positive axillary contents nodes. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?

Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.

Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)

There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.

Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?

Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy.

Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity):

Procedure type: Lumpectomy.

Specimen laterality: Right.

Tumor size: 7mm.

Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma.

Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9).

Tumor focality: Single focus.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

Treatment effect: No known therapy.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present.

Architectural pattern: Cribriform.

Nuclear grade: Grade 1.

Necrosis: Not identified.

Calcifications: Not identified.

Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm.

Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed).

Distant metastasis: Not applicable.

Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).

Example: Lung resection final diagnosis is Lung adenocarcinoma, see Summary Cancer Data, and the Summary Cancer Data (CAP Synoptic Report) states Histologic type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant. Other Subtypes Present: 20% acinar and <5% micropapillary components.

Instruction 1B and Note 1 for Coding Multiple Histologies (Lung Histology Rules) indicates type, subtype, component, and predominantly are all terms that may be used to code the most specific histology. In this case, the multiple specific histologies were documented using all of those terms.

Note 2 for instruction 1B states predominantly describes the greatest amount of tumor and when it is used for the listed subtypes of adenocarcinoma, that subtype should be coded. However, Note 2 does not indicate that the other subtypes are ignored when one is identified to be predominant and the others are identified as subtype or component only.

The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa.