SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules instructions, Final Diagnosis and Staging Summary (synoptic report) have equal coding priority. However, it is unclear which takes priority, or if this should be a combination of components, when the histologies are two different specific histologic types per Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules Manual.

A patient with hepatocellular carcinoma of the liver is waiting for a planned liver transplant. During the waiting period, a CT showed an increase in the liver nodule. The physician performed a bridging chemoembolization. Later on, the patient received a liver transplant. Is the liver transplant still first course treatment? Is the chemoembolization part of first course therapy? Per the SEER manual, first course therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed.

For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting?

In Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS/ NST, and Subtypes/Variants), the entry for papillary carcinoma, NOS includes a change in column 3 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules that conflicts with the H Rules. It is not accounted for in the change log. No explanation is offered as to why this change was made. This is a major change because encapsulated papillary carcinoma is frequently associated with carcinoma NST, and we have not been collecting these as such.

Encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504) in column 3 now includes an indented entry, with invasive carcinoma, NST/invasive duct carcinoma 8504/3. However, most encapsulated papillary carcinomas are in situ or there is no definitive statement of invasive encapsulated papillary carcinoma, so when in situ and invasive tumors are present, we are instructed to code the invasive histology (which would be the invasive carcinoma (NST), 8500/3). How are registrars to arrive at the correct histology without a new H rule or a clarification regarding this update being documented in the change log?

Does the same change/addition apply to solid papillary carcinoma? These are often also associated with carcinoma, NST. Again, without an explanation regarding the change mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the change was made.

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

The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3).

However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module.

We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module?

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.

In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found.  Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0?

Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only.

Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context?

The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm.  The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance.

No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case.

Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant?