SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per SEER 20140003, an omentectomy is not recorded under Surgery of Other Site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. Is this still correct? CoC appears to have different guidelines stating in a forum that an omentectomy is coded in data item Surgical Procedure to Other Site. I would like to confirm SEER guidelines. Is this one of those unique situations that SEER and STORE differ? Our state follows SEER guidelines and would like to communicate the appropriate rules to our facilities.

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32.

Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.

Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used?

Penile mass excision shows final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type. Subsequent partial penectomy has a final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type and the summary cancer data lists

Both the final diagnosis and summary cancer data indicate a histology code of 8051/3 (squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type / verrucous carcinoma). However, this site and histology combination triggers edit IFN4911. Edit documentation indicates that for sites C600-C609 (all penile sites) use histology code 8051 and do not use 8054.

Review of the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table does not indicate these terms are synonymous.

Patient with overlapping lesion of tongue and floor of mouth. Initial biopsy of floor of mouth reveals microinvasive squamous cell cancer. Definitive resection reveals in situ squamous cell cancer. Pathology report states unifocal tumor. The tumor site on pathology report is documented as involving the tongue and floor of mouth.

Should the primary site be coded to floor of mouth because it is the site of invasive disease? Or is primary site C148 [overlapping sites of lip, oral cavity and pharynx] because invasion should not be used to determine primary site?

Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as "in situ follicular lymphoma." The oncology assessment states, "At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma." No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored.

Patient was seen in 2009 at Hospital A for bone pain and was found to have metastatic adenocarcinoma. A paraffin block specimen was sent to BioThernostics for THEROS CancerTYPE ID Molecular Cancer Classification Tests. The results came back with a 94% likelihood that the urinary bladder was the primary site. No scans were done on the abdomen or pelvis.

The patient was then sent to Hospital B for radiation to the bones and chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Taxol). The patient died within 6 months.

According to Hospital A, the primary site is bladder based on the molecular study report. Hospital B says this is an unknown primary. Which is correct? Do we take primary site from these tests, even when no clinical correlation is documented?

Patient was originally diagnosed in June 2006, with right breast cancer and underwent lumpectomy and chemotherapy. This was followed by a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction in January of 2007 that showed no residual tumor in the breast but 1 positive right axillary lymph node. The patient started Arimidex in May 2007 and had ongoing follow-up.

In November 2011, the patient noted a "lump to her right upper reconstructed breast at approximately 2:00." Needle biopsy in December 2011 showed invasive carcinoma and the patient underwent a lumpectomy. The lumpectomy pathology report stated, "Breast tissue, right, lumpectomy: poorly differentiated infiltrating ductal cancer." There is no comparison of the current pathology to the previous pathology, as the previous lumpectomy/mastectomy was done at another facility. The patient is being treated at this facility with radiation as if this is a "recurrent/persistent right sided breast cancer."

Should this case be classified as a new primary because the pathology report indicates the malignancy was in breast tissue? Or is this actually a chest wall recurrence given the fact that the patient was previously treated with bilateral mastectomies? Should this case be treated as indicated in SINQ 20110111?

Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities.

There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment.

While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case.