SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient has a history of ganglioglioma, WHO grade I, involving the deep right parietal lobe diagnosed on resection in 07/2012. Tumor recurrence in 2017 was treated with radiation.

The patient then had right temporal tumor biopsy and resection 06/2021 with final diagnosis of anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, BRAF p.V600E mutant, WHO Grade III. Pathologist notes that the tumor demonstrates a ganglioglioma with frequent mitoses and possible vascular proliferation. Subsequent consult findings support an anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, compatible with progression of the patient's ganglioglioma that is post-irradiation. However, the pleomorphic and epithelioid areas are also reminiscent of pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, which may occur in combination with ganglion cell components. There is no related SINQ to code this histology.

The synoptic report calls this “Invasive adenocarcinoma with secondary Paget disease of anal mucosa and perianal skin.” The tumor size is listed as “2.1 x 1.7 x 0.7 cm, including associated advanced adenoma; size does not include the extent of the associated Paget disease, which extends for at least 2 cm distally.”  Clinically this is called an incidentally discovered Paget’s disease.

It is unclear if this is a collision tumor that should be abstracted as separate primaries, or if this is a single tumor with underlying Paget’s disease (similar to that described in Other Sites Rule H26). If this is a single rectal tumor, there does not appear to be an H rule for this scenario.

The patient was not synchronously diagnosed with multiple tumors, but three separate tumors with three different histologies were diagnosed at different times and no more specific histology was provided for the NSCLC. The timing rules do not apply to this case (the tumors were not greater than 3 years apart and they were not synchronously/simultaneously diagnosed).

While NSCLC is a NOS histology for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, it is unclear if Rule M8 should apply because NSCLC is not listed in Table 3 (Table 3 is not an exhaustive list). In some situations, Rule M8 would apply if the tumors were different histologies and one of the histologies was not listed in the Table. Does that logic still apply if one of the tumors is NSCLC? If NSCLC is excluded from Rule M8, is Rule M14 the appropriate M Rule for the 2022 NSCLC diagnosis?

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

Example: On 01/01/2023, patient has a frontal scalp shave biopsy showing melanoma, margins involved. On 02/01/2023, frontal scalp excision shows residual melanoma. Surgery code is assigned B520 (shave followed by wide excision). How is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded now that there is an additional surgery code for the shave biopsy?

Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538?

Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology.

Patient has a diagnosis of invasive carcinoma of the right breast from a core biopsy on 04/2023.

Subsequent bilateral mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy proves one positive sentinel node and one negative intramammary node.

One month later there is a completion axillary node dissection with 15 nodes negative for malignancy.

Per previous SINQ 20190074, the initial mastectomy and sentinel node excision with intramammary node removal should be coded as Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 6. It is unclear how the resulting axillary dissection should be recorded in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. There is no code for sentinel node biopsy and 3, 4, or 5 at same time (code 6) PLUS an additional subsequent axillary dissection.

Please provide coding instructions for Sentinel Lymph Nodes Positive, Sentinel Lymph Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery in this scenario.

SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable.

Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful.

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.

These diagnoses were made greater than one year apart with a disease-free interval and M12 seems to be the first rule that applies. This rule does not specifically state the tumors diagnosed greater than 1 year apart must be in the same primary site but Note 1 could be interpreted as implying this. Note 1 states, “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow-up.”

Does Other Sites Rule M12 (the timing rule) apply to tumors in different primary sites? It would be helpful if the notes specified this clarification, such as “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site (same second and third character CXX.X) on follow-up.”

The patient has adenopathy in multiple lymph node regions above and below the diaphragm and a lymph node biopsy pathology proved CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Further work-up with peripheral blood proved an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population comprising only a small percentage of the white blood cells (WBCs). The pathologist noted this neoplastic B-cell population comprises “3.5% of white blood cells and has an immunophenotype characteristic of CLL/SLL and is similar to the recent lymph node biopsy in this patient.” The managing physician indicated this was a Lugano Stage III SLL. The registrar coded the peripheral blood involvement in EOD Primary Tumor.

If this small percentage of WBCs with an abnormal B-cell population is included in EOD Primary Tumor as peripheral blood involvement, then this would indicate peripheral blood/bone marrow involvement and primary site would need to be coded to C421 per Rule PH5. Rules PH5 and PH6 confirm primary site must be coded C421 if peripheral blood or bone marrow are involved.

Is there a cutoff value for these abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood? Or should these abnormal B-cell populations be ignored unless the pathologist states the abnormal B-cell population is consistent with CLL/SLL (not just immunophenotypically characteristic of CLL/SLL)?