SEER Inquiry System - Search

Pathology report microscopic description: The tumor is a meningothelial neoplasm (EMA+; BCL-2 and CD34 negative) with prominent collagen deposition. Necrosis and prominent nucleoli are present; no other atypical features are seen. Mitoses are present, up to 2 per 10 high-powered fields. Final Diagnosis: Dura, bicoronal craniotomy (specimen A): Meningioma with atypical features.

There is no rule in benign brain and CNS section of Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) Rules stating to code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is (something less specific, i.e., adenocarcinoma). This rule is in other site chapters of MP/H but appears missing in the benign brain and CNS section.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 states: Record size in specified order using a. The largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment. See Coding Instructions 7-9 below. b. The largest size from all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis, in the absence of disease progression when no treatment is administered. #7 Priority of imaging/radiographic techniques: Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code clinical size when there is no more specific size information from a biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report. It should be taken as a lower priority, but over a physical exam.

Patient presented to hospital ED and had brain MRI that revealed 3.2 cm space occupying lesion in region of the left CPA and trigeminal vesicle nerve compatible with epidermoid tumor.

Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation.

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

Urinary bladder: Invasive urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, 4.5cm, predominantly solid type, arising in background of carcinoma in-situ, carcinoma grossly extends into perivesical adipose tissue; lymph-vascular invasion is seen.

Total thyroidectomy Final Diagnosis: Papillary carcinoma, classical type, with papillary and follicular architecture.

The 2007 MP/H rules state that the term architecture is reserved for coding subtype of in situ primaries only. However, SINQ 20130165 appears to indicate this should be coded for invasive thyroid subtypes as well. Can you confirm the addition of the term architecture for determining an invasive histologic subtype for thyroid?

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

CT-guided liver biopsy, diagnosis: Metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Diagnosis Comment: Cytology of the tumor appears to be low to intermediate grade.

Would this case be coded as an atypical carcinoid tumor (8249/3) based on SINQ 20170033 and the statement of intermediate grade; or should this be 8240/3 (neuroendocrine tumor) per SINQ 20160023 because it is a metastatic site? More clarification is needed on when to code 8249/3 or 8240/3 for a neuroendocrine carcinoma or neoplasm seen in a metastatic specimen only when there is specified grade.