SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents.

In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology.

Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018.

We would like to confirm that the correct histology code is 9431/1 per ICD-O-3.2, as the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Manual lists the histology code as both 9431/1 (pages 301 and 303 of the combined manual), but also shows it as a synonym for 9421/1 – Diffuse astrocytoma, MYB- or MYBL1 altered (page 304).

10/25/2023:  Patient presents to dermatology office with a questionable drug eruption having 3 weeks of papular eruptions of Trunk (Left Chest). Punch biopsies were taken that came back as immature hemopoietic infiltrate with monocytic differentiation. Comment: Myelodysplastic syndrome and leukemia cutis are possibilities. Addendum Report: Additional stains were prepared. ERG is strongly positive. CD1a and S100 do not stain the atypical cells.The controls stain appropriately. CD123 perform with appropriate control is also negative. The pattern is that of so-called "leukemia cutis" which could be seen in the clinical setting of myelodysplasia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) or precursor to acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AMML). Recommend work up. The only available information at present is a diagnosis of leukemia cutis, and that there was no prior history of a hematological malignancy in this patient.

Starting for cases diagnosed in 2024, the SPCSM manual no longer requires the data items for clinical and pathologic tumor size.  Instead, it appears to align with the CoC data item of Tumor Size Summary.  The two manuals contradict each other when it comes to coding tumor size summary for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) treated cancers.  

STORE states: "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999."  

2024 SPCSM states "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999." It continues to state     

 12. Assign code 000 when…. (a) no residual tumor is found…(i) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and the resection shows no residual tumor &

14. Assign code 999 when...(d) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and resection was performed. Do not use a post-neoadjuvant size to code pathologic tumor size; however, you may use the clinical tumor size if available

It seems that we will lose the value of the tumor size summary if we code 000 when NAC is administered and there is no residual disease. 

Example: Patient has a 90 mm triple positive breast tumor and is treated with neoadjuvant TCHP (docetaxel/carboplatin/ trastuzumab/pertuzumab). After completing neoadjuvant therapy, the patient has a mastectomy with no residual disease noted on the final pathology report. 

Using the 2024 SPCSM instructions, code 000 for Tumor Size Summary instead of 090 for the clinical tumor size of 90 mm tumor noted before NAC was administered. This has the potential to affect data analysis, research, and clinical trial accrual.

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?

We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3.

While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1.

Imaging identified a mass involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland and excision of the mass proved “histiocytosis.” The case was extensively reviewed, and the physician notes this patient has a pituitary tumor that is a “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis,” or a “non-LCH histiocytic neoplasm.”

There is no histology for histiocytosis (NOS) or non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, this does appear to be a non-malignant histiocytic neoplasm. If this were a Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm in the CNS it would be reportable. Should this non-Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm also be accessioned as a reportable CNS neoplasm? If so, how is the histology coded?

The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3).

However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module.

We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module?