SEER Inquiry System - Search

The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

The MP/H Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Colon indicate that type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation are all equivalent in terms of coding histology. However, this is not indicated in the General Instructions (e.g., Histologic Type ICD-O-3 or General Instructions Histology Coding Rules). It also is not included as a Note under the Rules where one would expect to use these terms, for example, Rule H7. Is this an oversight or error in the Manual?

In this case, Rule H7 seems to be the first (and most appropriate) rule that applies to this mixed histology tumor. However, the specific histology terms that an invasive tumor may be identified as, are only listed under Rule H13. Can these same terms be used when applying rules for which they are not specifically noted? It would seem logical to use the equivalent histology terms to code a mixed histology tumor identified as a subtype or with features, etc., despite the fact that the specific terms are not listed under Rule H7.

The most recent version of the Brain Site Specific Surgery schema has a note that states "Assign code 20 [Local excision of tumor, lesion, or mass, excisional biopsy] for stereotactic biopsy of brain tumor." Does this also apply to a stereotactic CORE biopsy?

SINQ 20081118 also states that a stereotactic biopsy should be coded as Surgery of Primary Site code 20.

The mediastinal nodes were submitted as a separate specimen. The patient also had several peribronchial nodes identified within the lobectomy specimen.

Does code 33 (Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection) require a complete mediastinal lymph node dissection (i.e. the removal of all lymph nodes in mediastinal chain(s) as opposed to a selective sampling/dissection of lymph nodes from multiple mediastinal chains)?

The managing physician has staged this pathologically as T4 N0 M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the ethmoid sinuses. The final pathology report says " Sinus, sphenoid, resection: papillary neoplasm most consistent with inverted papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ, 7 cm in greatest extent, focus of probable superficial invasion (see comment).

Soft tissue, skull base, excision: involved by papillary neoplasm with squamous cell carcinoma in situ (see comment). Brain, extradural, intercranial biopsy: involved by papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ. COMMENT:

This is a predominantly exophytic neoplasm with infolding of the tumor epithelium and in situ extension into submucosal glands. There are only focal areas suspicious for invasive squamous cell carcinoma, with probable invasion (<2mm) in one section....The histologic features are most consistent with an inverted papilloma with carcinoma in situ." When asked to comfirm if the diagnosis were in situ or superficially invasive, the pathologist responded "Squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving a papilloma. Locally aggressive but not technically invasive."

The Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases folding table states that this should be one primary, but is this true when they are both extralymphatic in origin?

The left thyroid lobectomy/isthmusectomy returned a diagnosis of sclerosing mucoepidermoid carcinoma with eosinophina, 6.5 cm, replacing nearly the entire left lobe of the thyroid.

The patient has a completion thyroidectomy of the right lobe and returned the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.5 mm, in maximum dimension.

The endocrinologist describes it as "co-exsisting" and states the tumor is iodine non-avid.

The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014.

The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003.

However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not.

Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003?