SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”

Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC).

Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction.

If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11.

7-03-97 PE: Past history significant for cavernous hemangiomas. Has had radiation and was on high-dose steroids in early 1996. Patient reports subsequent MRI done and neurologist gave "clean bill of health."

1-26-99 MRI BRAIN. Clinical information: history of intracranial cavernous hemangiomas. Comparison with prior brain MRI in 12/15/95. IMP: Upper medullary, right parieto-occipital, left frontal cavernous hemangiomas without interval change in size as compared to 12/15/95.

1-25-06 MRI BRAIN. Clinical info: history of prior radiation for cavernous angiomas. Comparison made with prior exam on 1/26/99. Impression: Multiple, variable sized cavernous angiomas within medulla, pontomedullary junction, midbrain, & cerebral hemispheres. Dominant lesion centered within posterior pontomedullary junction. FINDINGS: 8mm lesion in posterior pontomedullary junction. 2mm lesion within right paracentral portion of medulla. Several less than 5mm lesions noted within brain stem bilateral. Two, less than 1-2mm, areas within right inferior aspect of right and left cerebellar hemispheres. 1cm lesion centered within white matter within right posterior parietal/occipital region. Several small, less than 1-2mm, lesion within surrounding white matter. 3rd dominant lesion within left frontal lobe equal 6mm. Several 1-2mm foci of susceptibility artifact within subcortical white matter of high right and left cerebral hemispheres consistent with small cavernous angiomas.

In the September 2021 Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules update, the term configuration was removed from the “DO NOT CODE histology when described as” list. However, it was not added as a term that can be used to code the more specific histology for urinary tumors.

Can configuration be used to code the more specific histology 8130 (papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma, tumor configuration: papillary?

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.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?