SEER Inquiry System - Search

Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules to address diagnoses of small cell carcinoma following prostate adenocarcinoma, but Rule M4 states the diagnoses must be greater than one year apart.

In this situation, the diagnoses were less than one year apart and one must continue through the M Rules. The next M Rule that applies Rule M19: “Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on multiple rows in Table 2-21 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant.” If one were to STOP at the first rule that applies, one would stop at Rule M19 which confirms the prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma are separate primaries, regardless of timing. If these are not to be accessioned as multiple primaries, does an Exception need to be added to M19?

Serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant (8460/2, C569) was included in the ICD-O-3 Behavior Code/term updates effective 1/1/2018 but marked as Not Reportable for 2018.

There have been multiple additional updates to the ICD-O but no further clarification as to the reportability of this histology. ICD-O-3.2 currently lists serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant (C569) as 8460/2 with no mention of reportability and no information provided in Includes/Excludes.

SINQ 20220032 instructs capturing this histology as reportable when diagnosed 1/1/2021 or later and occurring in the testis. The answer indicates this is reportable due to the /2 behavior code in ICD-O-3.2, but it does not specify that it is limited to specific sites.

Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant reportable for ovary? If so, what dates apply? Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant of the testis diagnosed after 1/1/2021 reportable?

Example #1: Cervix loop electrocautery excision procedure (LEEP) pathology: Histologic Type: Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated. Histologic Type Comments: High-risk HPV testing on previous Pap test sample reported as positive for high-risk HPV. The prior Pap diagnosis was HSIL only with molecular results positive for high-risk HPV.

Example #2: Cervix endocervical curettage and biopsy with CIN 3, p16 diffusely positive. Subsequent LEEP with superficially invasive squamous carcinoma (no HPV or p16 testing done). This was followed by an additional cone excision that was negative for residual malignancy and p16 testing was also negative.

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

The Solid Tumor Rules indicate p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV-associated/-independent.

In this case, we do not know whether the HR-HPV test was done on cytologically malignant cells, or on benign cervical cells. It may be impossible to tell unless 100% of the cytology specimen is malignant, but we will not have access to that information. Also, HR-HPV testing is routine on Pap smears, so this testing does not mean the tumor cells specifically harbor HPV.

There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors.

If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11?

Can you provide clarification on Rectum primary surgical code 40 Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis)? Would this be code 30 or 40 due to the colorectal anastomosis? 

In 2021, the patient was diagnosed with a non-reportable appendiceal LAMN.  Resection showed a tumor diffusely involving the appendix and perforating the visceral peritoneum, as well as extensive intraperitoneal metastasis.  In 2023, a lung wedge resection revealed metastatic mucinous neoplasm involving lung parenchyma and pleura, consistent with metastasis of the known appendiceal primary.  It is understood that intraperitoneal spread of an appendiceal LAMN does not make it reportable because the peritoneal disease is also non-invasive.  Does extraperitoneal metastasis of an appendiceal LAMN diagnosed prior to 2022 make it invasive disease and therefore reportable?