SEER Inquiry System - Search

A physician stated the patient likely had secondary polycythemia vera due to cardiac and pulmonary conditions but that a polycythemia vera could not be ruled out. A JAK2 was ordered that was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. The patient was treated with hydrea.

According to SEER SINQ 20120049, secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. However, in this case, the patient was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. Therefore, is this reportable? We looked for guidance in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and found it confusing that secondary polycythemia vera was not mentioned or discussed under polycythemia vera in the database. The only thing we could find was secondary polycythemia NOS that was discussed under polycythemia.

The SEER Manual states to assign Tumor Size--Pathological code 000 when EOD Primary Tumor is coded to 800 (No evidence of primary tumor) for any schema. However, the definition of Tumor Size--Pathologic states that it records the size of a solid primary tumor that has been resected.

If the primary site has not been resected (does not meet the pathologic staging criteria), then it seems that Tumor Size Pathologic should be 999 when EOD Primary Tumor is coded as 800.

1. 12/11/2020 Peripheral blood revealing what was thought to be chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL1 positive (9875/3). Patient was started on Hydrea while waiting for further tests on 12/12/2020.

2. 12/14/2020 Lymph node biopsy showed granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), but flow cytometry states it is similar to that seen in the patient's peripheral blood and is consistent with nodal involvement by myeloblasts.

3. 12/15/2020 Bone marrow biopsy reads acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3), likely arising from BCR/ABL1 positive chronic myeloid leukemia. There is a note on this pathology from medical oncologist that says: This will dramatically change the course of his treatment, likely with a TKI.

4. 12/17/2020 Sprycel started. Patient was weaned off Hydrea.

According to Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. It lists 9930/3 when simultaneously (or after) with 9861/3. Technically, it was two days before, but I feel like I should and could count that as simultaneously because of Note 1 that says: These sarcomas are solid manifestations of the associated leukemia. For example, when acute myeloid leukemia and myeloid sarcoma are diagnosed simultaneously, the myeloid sarcoma is the result of myeloid cells migrating from the bone marrow or blood into tissue. It is part of the disease process for the acute leukemia. Also, the providers never mention granulocytic sarcoma

Based on that, I think that #2 & #3 above are the same primary, which would be acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3).

Per the hematopoietic database, 9875/3 transforms to 9861/3. Therefore, Rule M8 is confusing with the "only one" biopsy. Does this rule apply because the 9875/3 was from peripheral blood only? But peripheral blood is coded in Diagnostic Confirmation as histology.

Rule M9 reads: The two diagnoses are likely the result of an ongoing diagnostic work-up. The later diagnosis is usually based on all of the test results and correlated with any clinical information. Because that is truly what I think is happening here though that rule states there is no available documentation. If you do not have any documentation, how would you know you are dealing with a chronic and an acute diagnosis?

M10 does not apply.

According to Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days and there is documentation of two biopsies. The chronic myelogenous leukemia only had peripheral blood and not a bone marrow, lymph node or tissue, but that is counted as positive histology in diagnostic confirmation, but I don't know if that is kept as a separate field/thought. I would not code a peripheral blood smear as with a surgical code or a surgical diagnostic and staging procedure code, so maybe that is what I should be thinking about and therefore would probably say Rule M8 and one primary.

Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample.

SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation?

Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database.

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?

Rule H8 of the Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules states that multiple variants of melanoma in one tumor are rare and a question must be submitted to Ask a SEER Registrar (AASR) for the correct histology code. However, our facility has seen a number of these cases in 2021 and would like to track the official answer and make it available to all in this format.

How should histology be coded for the following?

1. January 2021 diagnosis of left shoulder invasive malignant melanoma, histologic type: nodular and desmoplastic types per College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary of punch biopsy.

2. May 2021 shave biopsy of left arm invasive malignant melanoma, superficial spreading and nodular variant is listed in the CAP summary.

3. June 2021 diagnosis of right cheek invasive malignant melanoma, histologic subtype: superficial spreading and nodular seen on CAP summary of shave biopsy.

For example, total thyroidectomy specimen shows right lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma, 4.2 cm, unencapsulated, with numerous psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion; left lobe with papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.6 cm, encapsulated, with capsular invasion, with intralymphatic psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion. The synoptic summary documents vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only).

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

Table 3 (Breast Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists “Neuroendocrine tumor, well-differentiated” of the breast as histology 8246/3. There is no entry for a grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor of the breast in Table 3.  

The pathologist did not indicate the neuroendocrine tumor was poorly differentiated (or it would otherwise be a small cell carcinoma). The pathologist noted “By current WHO criteria, this tumor is characteristic of a mammary neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.  These invasive tumors have similar prognostic and predictive features of invasive ductal carcinoma of the same grade and stage.”