Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200069 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for an in situ encapsulated papillary carcinoma with an invasive carcinoma, NST? See Discussion. |
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 situ encapsulated papillary arising in or with invasive carcinoma, NST (a single tumor) is a single invasive histology. Use rule H14 and code the histology per Table 3. A note as been added to the 2023 breast rule H8 instructing when there is a single tumor with histology of in situ encapsulated papillary with invasive carcinoma or solid papillary carcinoma with invasove, continue through the rules. See H14 and code the appropriate histology per Table 3. Histologic types are becoming more complex and often have both in situ and invasive components but have a single code to identify them. |
2020 |
|
|
20200068 | Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Colon: Are colon primaries coded as local or regional (direct extension) on Summary Stage based on invasion into the pericolorectal tissues? For example, is a case with an ascending colon tumor that extends into the pericolorectal tissues, pT3, local or regional by direct extension? |
Code as Localized using the SEER Summary Stage Manual, Colon and Rectum, Note 6. Localized is for subsites that are not peritonealized, including the posterior side of the ascending colon, or when the pathologist does not further describe the "pericolic/perirectal tissues" as either "non-peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues" vs "peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues" fat and the gross description does not describe the tumor relation to the serosa/peritoneal surface, and it cannot be determined whether the tumor arises in a peritonealized portion of the colon. Refer to the coding instructions in both EOD and Summary Stage for a list of sites that are nonperitonealized or peritonealized. . |
2020 | |
|
|
20200067 | Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Colon: What is the Summary Stage for adenocarcinoma of cecum where the tumor extends into the proximal portion of attached vermiform appendix? See Discussion. |
2020 Diagnosis: Patient had a right hemicolectomy showing adenocarcinoma of cecum, tumor extends into proximal portion of attached vermiform appendix. Tumor invades through muscularis propria into pericolorectal tissues (NOS). Regional lymph nodes: 06/39. Primary Tumor EOD: Where does the appendix involvement come into coding or will this be based on the pericolorectal tissue (NOS) invasion? What is my Summary Stage? I know it is at least 3 due to regional ln involvement, but the appendix involvement is making me question 3 vs 4. |
Assign code 4, Regional by BOTH direct extension AND regional lymph node(s) involved. In this case, the Regional component for Summary Stage 2018 is based on Note 6, under Colon and Rectum where Regional is defined as: -Mesentery -Peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues invaded [Ascending Colon/Descending Colon/Hepatic Flexure/Splenic Flexure/Upper third of rectum: anterior and lateral surfaces; Cecum; Sigmoid Colon; Transverse Colon; Rectosigmoid; Rectum: middle third anterior surface] -Pericolic/Perirectal fat |
2020 |
|
|
20200066 | Reportability--Skin: Effective 2021, a cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is a related term for smooth muscle tumor, NOS (8897/1) in ICD-O-3.2. Currently, we have been capturing these as a C44_ (leiomyosarcoma, 8890/3) but the 2019 SEER inquiry states that atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) was previously termed cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. This is not documented on the 2018 ICD-O-3 updates. Should this 2019 case be 8897/1 or 8890/3? |
Cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is reportable for 2019. Code histology to leiomyosarcoma 8890/3. As of cases diagnosed 1/1/2021, it is no longer reportable based on assignment to 8897/1 in ICD-O-3.2. |
2020 | |
|
|
20200065 | Tumor Size/Corpus uteri--Endometrium: Is clinical tumor size coded to the endometrial stripe measurement or thickening in the endometrium. See Discussion. |
Example: Pelvic ultrasound-19 mm thickened endometrium; bilateral ovaries unremarkable. Case was coded to 19 mm for clinical tumor size. I have always been taught NOT to use "endometrial stripe" or "thickening" measurements for clinical size. Can you confirm. Also, is this noted on any of the SEER resources such as SEER training or in the SEER tumor size guidelines? I wanted to point them out to a reference if it is available. |
We consulted with an expert GYN pathologist. He confirmed our thinking that endometrial stripe or thickening does not represent clinical tumor size. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual for reference. |
2020 |
|
|
20200064 | Primary site--Heme &Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of two extraosseous plasmacytomas, with positive pathology of right orbit and left lung. The patient's bone marrow biopsy, flow, and peripheral blood smear were negative. Is this coded as 9732/3, multiple myeloma (Primary Site and Histology Rule PH2) with the primary site as C809 (PH27)? Or is the primary site C421 since code 9732 says primary site is always C421, though bone marrow came back as negative? |
Assign the primary site to C421 since that is the only allowable primary site for plasma cell myeloma, even though the bone marrow was negative. According to the revised criteria from the WHO Blue Book for Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (2017), the presence of multiple plasmacytomas is plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2020 | |
|
|
20200063 | Solid Tumor Rules (2021)/Laterality--Melanoma: Will the table called Site for Which Laterality Code Must Be Recorded be updated in the 2021 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual as C444 is not included? The 2021 Cutaneous Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules say that C444 requires laterality; it says (new) beside it on the new Solid Tumor Rules for 2021. |
The laterality table in the 2021 SEER manual will not be updated. Please follow the 2021 Cutaneous Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules and assign a laterality for C444. |
2020 | |
|
|
20200062 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a 7/2016 diagnosis of right lower lobe lung mucinous adenocarcinoma, treated with Erlotinib and Avastin? In 4/2020, a liver biopsy finds metastatic high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, clinically stated to be metastatic lung cancer, with no evidence of a new primary lung tumor on PET (liver the only site of disease)? See Discussion. |
We think this should be a single primary because the Solid Tumor rules do not apply to metastases. However, we are not sure whether or not the instructions outlined for prostate (SINQ 20180088, 20130221), that indicate we are to accession a new metastatic tumor only with a small cell neuroendocrine histology after an adenocarcinoma, also applies to lung primaries. We are aware of a phenomenon in which lung adenocarcinoma cases treated with Erlotinib can transform to small cell, but do not know whether it impacts the number of reportable primaries. |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] per Rule M8 of the Lung Solid Tumor Rules, as these histology codes are on different rows in Table 3 of the rules. This is consistent with similar prior SINQ questions. |
2020 |
|
|
20200061 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: A patient has high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation followed by carcinosarcoma. Is this one or two primaries? See Discussion. |
12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2. Histology 8130 01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin. 07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used? |
The carcinosarcoma is a separate tumor, abstract a new primary per M13. Code this primary to 8980/3. Based on the information provided, the patient was first diagnosed with papillary urothelial carcinoma and received neo-adjuvant treatment for that specific histologic type. Subsequent resection identified carcinosarcoma arising within the papillary neoplasm. Carcinosarcoma is rare in bladder primaries and is not included in Table 2; however, it is a subtype/variant of sarcoma. |
2020 |
|
|
20200060 | First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion. |
Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease? |
Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
