SEER Inquiry System - Search

For example, a patient has a 2.6 cm breast tumor on MRI; a core biopsy measuring 0.7 cm is positive for infiltrating duct carcinoma. Rule #1 states "Use the largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment." However, Rule #9 seems to imply that size from an "incisional biopsy" takes precedence over imaging, even though it is known to be less than the entire tumor in size.

Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation).

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

Histologic Type: HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. Overall, the morphology, immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing results support the diagnosis of an HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma. This entity has been described in the sinonasal region, where it behaves more indolently than its other salivary gland carcinoma counterparts (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma), with local recurrence but rare metastases.

Should the updated Note 5 from the Non-malignant CNS regarding optic nerve glioma also be incorporated into Note 6 for Malignant CNS rules (the pilocytic astrocytoma note)?

This was one of the major issues identified in the SEER*Educate Workshop. Registrars have demonstrated they do not consistently think to look at the Non-malignant CNS schema when they see the term glioma and continue to misclassify optic nerve gliomas as malignant.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

CT a/p read by radiologist shows: "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney." Follow-up MRI a month later reads "right kidney cystic lesion with enhancing mural nodule concerning for cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." Urologist consult used the same wording of "Bosniak 4 cystic lesion" and "concerning for renal cell carcinoma." Treatment discussed but due to patient health status recommended repeat imaging. Repeat CT few months later reads: "cystic right renal lesion with enhancing nodule similar to most recent prior and suspicious for cystic RCC."

Though "suspicious for cystic RCC" per latest imaging is reportable, Bosniak 4 is "clearly malignancy, ~100% malignant" by definition, so is the case actually reportable with the first CT a/p date as date of diagnosis?

The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Table 4 (Changes in reportable terminology), 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update, does confirm that the term malignant no longer needs to be used to describe a paraganglioma, but Table 4 includes the histology for extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) as the new preferred term for paraganglioma. Paraganglioma, NOS is histology code 8680/3. Which code is correct?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

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.

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?