SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per Solid Tumor Manual Other Sites Rule M6, despite the number of areas of involvement, any presentation of Kaposi sarcoma is always a single primary. The primary site is skin using the Kaposi Sarcoma for All Sites Coding Guidelines (Appendix C, 2023 SEER Manual). 

Does SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Laterality Coding Instruction #4 preclude the use of code 4 [Bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis...] if a patient presents with KS involvement of only both arms or only both sides of the face?

This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease. This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500. Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells). Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant. Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant. This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category). Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field? In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)?

The Solid Tumor Rules indicate p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV-associated/-independent.

In this case, we do not know whether the HR-HPV test was done on cytologically malignant cells, or on benign cervical cells. It may be impossible to tell unless 100% of the cytology specimen is malignant, but we will not have access to that information. Also, HR-HPV testing is routine on Pap smears, so this testing does not mean the tumor cells specifically harbor HPV.

The patient was initially diagnosed with invasive mammary carcinoma of the right breast in 2018, treated with lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, radiation, and hormones. Hormones were discontinued early due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”

This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?

The 10/2023 TURBT final diagnosis is “Urothelial carcinoma with mixed histologic appearances, see synoptic summary below for details.” The synoptic report includes, “Histologic Type Comment: Invasive carcinoma percentages: Micropapillary 60-70%, high grade or poorly differentiated urothelial 20-30%, squamous 10-20%.” The squamous component is stated to be “Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation.”

It appears there are two specific urothelial carcinoma subtypes to consider: Urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary variant (8131/3) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (8020/3). The squamous component would not be considered because there is no specific histology for “squamous differentiation.”

The micropapillary component is the predominant histology (60-70%) in this case, and it does seem like this is important to capture. However, the WHO Blue Book indicates poorly differentiated carcinoma of the bladder has a poor prognosis.

Patient was diagnosed with a pT1c prostate cancer in 2022. Patient was then treated with radical prostatectomy. No residual disease was found. Would the correct EOD prostate path extension code be 999 based on Note 8 (code 999 when radical prostatectomy is performed, but there is no information on the extension); or, would we use code 300 (confined to prostate) because the data item "...is used to assign pT category for prostate cancer based on radical prostatectomy specimens" and we know it was limited to the prostate because no residual was found?

March 2022, left shoulder soft tissue mass excision shows a spindle cell tumor with outside consultation diagnosis of malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement. Diagnosis comments indicate the findings most closely resemble the spectrum of kinase-rearranged mesenchymal neoplasms, such as lipofibromatosis-like neural tumor. However, the expression of SOX10 and mature melanocytic markers is unusual, and does not exclude melanocytic differentiation.

Should this be classified as a peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (9364) or as an "NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm (emerging)" (8990) if there is a NTRK gene rearrangement?

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?