SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.

The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.

The Histology Coding Instructions give priority to the Final Diagnosis over the CAP protocol. However, when pathology reports are formatted using the CAP protocol, the presence of in situ carcinoma is generally only mentioned in the CAP protocol. Can the presence of in situ tumor mentioned only in the CAP protocol be used to apply rule H7 (Single Tumor: Invasive and In Situ Components Module)? Or are the rules in the Single Tumor: Invasive Only module used?

Example: Final diagnosis is invasive ductal carcinoma. CAP protocol mentions,

The Heme DB originally stated the Definitive Diagnostic Method is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] while an updated version stated it can coded as a clinical diagnosis or it can be based on the results of a bone marrow biopsy or a genetic test. The Abstractor Note section specifies this is a diagnosis of exclusion. According to a recent Web-based training seminar, the JAK-2 diagnosis would be coded 5 [positive laboratory test/marker study]. Doesn't the Definitive Diagnostic Method of a clinical diagnosis/diagnosis of exclusion mean that the diagnostic confirmation of essential thrombocythemia will always be coded as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]? Many people use code 3 for positive bone marrow biopsy and genetics (JAK-2), but the bone marrow is usually reported as only borderline or is stated to be abnormal for a person's age.

The Heme DB identifies these as new primaries:

10/12/12 Large intestine, biopsy: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

10/12/12 Bone marrow biopsy: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB) definition for systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematological neoplasm (SM-AHN, 9741/3) states SM-AHN is a variant of systemic mastocytosis that arises with a myeloid disease of non-mast cell lineage (e.g., MDS, MPN, etc.) and that,

However, SINQ 20130172 conflicts with the Heme DB stating the systemic mastocytosis and the associated hematological neoplasm are a single primary coded to a single histology (9741/3) per Rule M2.

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

The following form of gene therapy has been described as treatment for malignant brain tumors.

Patients undergo surgery to remove as much of the tumor as possible. After surgery, the patients are infused with a virus that has been genetically altered so that it is not infectious and so that it contains a gene from the herpes simplex virus. The herpes gene is sensitive to a drug called ganciclovir. Once inside the brain, the genetically altered virus infects any remaining tumor cells. When this occurs, the herpes gene is established inside the cancer cells. After the virus infects the cancer cells, the patients are given ganciclovir. This drug would kill both the virus and the brain tumor cells.

The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma).

Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered.

Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility.

Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary?

The following are scenarios for which we would like clarification on how to code Spanish Ethnicity.