SEER Inquiry System - Search

In reference to the case below, does it make a difference if the CS T stage is known based on the primary excision but there is no clinical information in the record regarding the nodes or metastasis evaluation.

This scenario is seen on outpatient records of breast biopsies and melanoma excisions; i.e., punch bx followed by gross excision of the lesion but the medical record contains no clinical information or statement of everything else normal.

I&R Question 17625 2/16/2006

A patient was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by needle core biopsy of the right breast. There was no further information in the chart stating if or where the patient went for staging work-up and treatment. What are the codes for CS Extension, CS Regional Lymph Nodes and CS Distant Mets at Dx?

I&R Answer: Sufficient tissue must be taken to determine the T category. If this is the case, CS Extension = 00.

Unless the physician makes the statement that the physical exam is negative, code the CS Regional Lymph Nodes = 99 CS Distant Mets at DX = 99.

In previous STR versions and the ICD-O-3.2, SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 is 8815/0 and only SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G2 was 8815/1. However, Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS, Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) was changed in the 2025 updates to indicate both G1 and G2 SFT/hemangiopericytoma are 8815/1.

No date range was provided for this change in the STR and the behavior of this tumor was not updated by the standard setters in other references (i.e., ICD-O-3.2). The behavior of G1 SFT/hemangiopericytoma was not updated in the 2025 ICD-O-3.2 updates. If the ICD-O-3.2 was the source of this change, should this have been documented in the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines? However, the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines indicates, "There are no ICD-O-3 changes for 2025." Is this behavior change in 2025 Solid Tumor Rules updates an error? Should the behavior of SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 remain /0? 

In our registry, we code the primary site for such cases to the extra-lymphatic site if there is one extra-nodal site involved with disease and the patient does not have disseminated involvement of multiple extra-nodal sites. Is this correct? Example: A patient with a submandibular lymphoma and involved nodes undergoes a salivary gland excision and a modified radical neck dissection yielding 100 nodes.

In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual.

Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype.

Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype?

in March, the patient with stage cT1c, Gleason grade 7, prostate cancer elected active surveillance. In April, the patient consented to treatment with Lupron. There was no evidence of disease progression. According to the rules on page 161 of the 2023 SEER manual, we think the answer is yes, but the reporting hospital states that this is second course therapy.

In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3].

Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)?

In ICD-O-3, chondroma and chondroblastoma are site-associated morphologies for bone. If a chondroma or a chondroblastoma occurs along the spinal cord, is this one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default site to bone and not to spinal cord?

Reference: ICD-O-3; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004; SINQ 20021152

In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?

Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.

Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor?

In Dec. 2003 a patient was diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma of the left palm. In Jan. 2004 the patient had an excision with skin graft and positive margins. Amputation was recommended but the patient chose radiation instead. In May 2006 the patient had a local excision positive for epithelioid sarcoma followed by an amputation of the thumb and index finger with positive margins. Then in April 2010, the patient had an amputation of the remnant of left hand up to the middle third of the forearm. Again, there was residual distal invasive tumor positive for epithelioid sarcoma.

In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol?