SEER Inquiry System - Search

10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion).

12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas).

4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis.

Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior?

SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6?

Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor."

The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries).

Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)?

How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)?

Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned.

Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case?

Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.”

Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case?

The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm.  The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance.

No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case.

Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant?

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?

The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.”

Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist.

Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only.

Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context?

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.”

If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2?

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.