SEER Inquiry System - Search

The resection pathology report final diagnosis indicates this is both mixed mucinous and non-mucinous with a lepidic predominant component. The pathologist notes this is “Lepidic: 75%. Acinar: 25%.”  The percentage of the mucinous component is not documented.

Rule H1, Note 1, states “When mucinous carcinoma is mixed with another histology, such as adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, code mucinous ONLY when mucinous is documented to be greater than 50% of the tumor.” While mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous carcinoma is included in Table 2 (Combination/Mixed Histology Codes) without a required percentage, it is unclear whether one should move past Rule H7 and use Rule H8 to code this combination histology code. Rule H7 would instruct one to code the histology to lepidic adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant) based on the percentage of the lepidic component in the tumor. However, this does not address the mixed mucinous and non-mucinous diagnosis. Which H Rule and histology apply to this case?

The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.

The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?

The race category in some hospital electronic medical record systems includes a combined category of “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.” What race code should be used in a situation where the only available information is “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander?”

The pt presents with "mediastinal adenopathy" for a lung primary and was treated with pre-operative radiation therapy. After two months, he was treated with surgery. The 10 lymph nodes removed were all negative. How does SEER code these three EOD fields?

Will an error be triggered in SEER Edits if you code lymph nodes as clinically positive in the EOD lymph node involvement field and yet pathologically negative in the number of regional nodes positive and number of regional nodes examined fields?

The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document.

In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority.

Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not?

The physicians do not use the Lugano system as we are instructed to stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) as lymphomas. I had always been instructed that this qualifies as "bone marrow involvement," or "diffuse disease," and therefore is a Stage IV. Our experts advise that there is not enough information to code it to bone marrow, but do not elaborate as to whether you can actually code Extent of Disease (EOD), SEER Summary Stage, and AJCC Staging?

The physician states the "patient's clinical picture certainly is most consistent with MDS." Several FISH probes were performed on peripheral blood, specifically looking for the 5q minus syndrome as well as other molecular rearrangements to suggest or confirm MDS. These studies came back as normal. The initial bone marrow also came back negative. The physician then states, "The suspicion was that this represented a myelodysplastic syndrome despite the normal cytogenetics. Additional studies performed on the date of the clinic visit included the FISH for the 5q minus syndrome as well as CD59 to exclude PNH. Both of these were negative. Therefore, at this juncture, the patient has a macrocytic anemia not yet requiring transfusion support with a normal white count and an elevated platelet count and a hypercellular bone marrow. This is certainly consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome."

Per coding guidelines, ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology, only for reportability. What is the histology code for this case?

The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary.

5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate

10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring.

06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor.

07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic.

The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]?