SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.

Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)

There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.

Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?

Example: Patient diagnosed following a resection of a cystic mass at L2-4 that proved an intradural tumor excision with final diagnosis of schwannoma, WHO grade 1.

Per new Solid Tumor Rules, the primary site in this case should be coded C476 (peripheral nerves of trunk, NOS) and histology is 9560/0 (schwannoma, NOS). However, there are currently no coding options in the Soft Tissue of Trunk and Extremities EOD schema relating to a benign tumor. Likewise there are no coding options in the Soft Tissue and Sarcoma Summary Stage 2018 schema relating to a benign tumor.

How should EOD 2018 and Summary Stage 2018 be coded for reportable benign schwannomas of the spinal nerve roots?

Left frontal mass biopsy diagnosis comment states: Given the synaptophysin and patchy CD34 staining of these cells, the possibility of ganglioglioma and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma is raised. Astroblastoma and ependymoma were considered given the perivascular pseudorosettes, however GFAP staining is quite limited against these tumors. Reticulin stain shows limited perivascular reticulin staining however. Nevertheless, the necrosis, mitotic activity and elevated mitotic activity would point to a malignant neoplasm. Given the neural and limited GFAP staining, a generic classification of neuroglial is provided.

This is the only available information. Further clarification or discussion with the physician or pathologist is not possible. Therefore, is this diagnosis of neuroglial tumor equivalent to that described in SINQ 20091037?

In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual.

Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype.

Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype?

It appears that the first Other Sites applicable rule is H16 (and Table 2) instructing the use of histology code 8323 (mixed cell adenocarcinoma). However, this really is not an adenocarcinoma tumor but is a mixed squamous and transitional cell carcinoma. The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update Table provides a new term for a but does not indicate whether that new term would also include a papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the cervix.

Patient has a 1.7 cm encapsulated papillary carcinoma staged as pTis located 2 cm from the nipple and Paget disease of the nipple on mastectomy pathology.

There is no indication in Table 3: Specific Histologies, NOS/NST, and Subtypes/Variants that encapsulated papillary carcinoma is a subtype of ductal carcinoma. Rule M8 notes that if the histology of the underlying tumor is any histology OTHER THAN duct or subtypes of duct, one should continue through the rules. But if M9 applies to this case, then incidence reporting will be increased in comparison to prior years.

We are confused by the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction that states: This sequence number counts all tumors that were reportable in the year they were diagnosed even if the tumors occurred before the registry existed or before the registry participated in the SEER Program. Does this rule apply to benign and borderline CNS tumors?

Does this mean that any non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 should NOT be included in the sequencing (in the 60s range) if we were collecting non-malignant CNS per our State Registry reporting requirements prior to 2004?

Example: Patient has a March 2017 diagnosis of right sided vestibular schwannoma (C724-1, 9560/0) and a prior history of left sided acoustic neuroma (c724-2, 9560/0) diagnosed in 1991. How should sequence be coded for each primary in our file?

Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.

In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.

It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.

SINQ 20160008 discusses the reportabilty and diagnosis date for liver primaries where imaging references the LI-RADS category as LR-5 or LR-5V. The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, Appendix E Reportable Example #16, demonstrates this concept. According to the LI-RADS categories a value of 5 is "definitely HCC" and is concordant with OPTN 5. Often we see only the OPTN categorization.