SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

In September 2009 the patient was diagnosed with seminoma, classical type, following an orchiectomy. Testicular mass recurrence in 2014 was treated with chemotherapy.

Then in April 2015 a retroperitoneal dissection of a peri-aortic LN was positive for mixed germ cell tumor with somatic type malignancy (rhabdomyosarcoma) involving 1/11 nodes. Path Comment: major component of tumor is teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma represents <5% of mass.

Now in October 2016, the patient has a retroperitoneal mass biopsy positive for spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcomatous differentiation. The comment section of the pathology report states, "Given the history of a germ cell tumor w/ rhadbomosarcomatous component, the findings are consistent with a recurrence of rhabdomyosarcomatous component of germ cell tumor."

Can a seminoma transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (see SINQ 20140082 - testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy)?

In SINQ 20100025 a patient was diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors over a year apart. Rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was left coded to the original primary site, C65.9 [renal pelvis]. In SINQ 20110119 a patient is diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors within a month of each other, again rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was coded to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS].

In both cases, rule M8 applies. However, the tumors were not diagnosed synchronously (e.g., one month apart in one case and greater than one year apart in the other). When the SINQ answer states, "same time" or "synchronous" does this mean during the same event? If not, what is the time range for "same time" or "synchronous"?

Please clarify when it is appropriate to code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS] for Rule M8 and when it is not.

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 Appendix C- Breast (SEER Manual 2015) it states under the codes for TOTAL MASTECTOMY (Codes 40-49, 75): For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294). [SEER Note: Example of single primary with removal of involved contralateral breast--Inflammatory carcinoma involving both breasts. Bilateral simple mastectomies. Code Surgery of Primary Site 41 and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site 1.] HOWEVER, underneath that it states code 76 is used for: 76 Bilateral mastectomy for a single tumor involving both breasts, as for bilateral inflammatory carcinoma. So

In 2021, the patient was diagnosed with a non-reportable appendiceal LAMN.  Resection showed a tumor diffusely involving the appendix and perforating the visceral peritoneum, as well as extensive intraperitoneal metastasis.  In 2023, a lung wedge resection revealed metastatic mucinous neoplasm involving lung parenchyma and pleura, consistent with metastasis of the known appendiceal primary.  It is understood that intraperitoneal spread of an appendiceal LAMN does not make it reportable because the peritoneal disease is also non-invasive.  Does extraperitoneal metastasis of an appendiceal LAMN diagnosed prior to 2022 make it invasive disease and therefore reportable? 

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?