SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?

Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?

According to the literature, PMH is a low-grade malignant vascular neoplasm of different tissue planes including skin and soft tissue. However, the references also state: PMH is a cutaneous tumor that behaves in an indolent fashion. There is no indication that this was a malignant diagnosis.

12/3/18 Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Superficial squamous epithelium demonstrating hyperkeratosis and fragments of keratin debris, no tumor seen.

Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

NOTE: The submitted immunohistochemical slides were reviewed. Positive and negative controls reacted appropriately. The tumor cells demonstrate immunoreactivity to CK AE1/AE3 and CK7. The CD31 immunoreactivity described in the report cannot be confirmed as only the positive control is submitted for review. The tumor cells are negative for desmin, CD45, CD68, S-100, CD34, SMA, CD20, and HHV8. The proliferative index via Ki-67 is approximately 10%. The morphology (described below) and immunohistochemistry performed are compatible with a pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

12/4/18 Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Foot, left bone lesion, biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

Note: The patient's imaging findings were reviewed in conjunction with this case, revealing numerous lytic lesions of the tibia, fibula, talus, tarsal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones. Additionally, as per the medical record, also reviewed in conjunction with this case, there are lesions of the skin. Thus, an extensive immunohistochemical panel was performed in an attempt to support the morphologic findings in this case, which were morphologically similar to the patient's skin biopsy. The tumor cells demonstrate strong immunoreactivity to pancytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3) and vimentin with moderate immunoreactivity to Fli-1. The tumor cells demonstrate weak immunoreactivity to epithelial membrane antigen. INI-1 is retained. There is focal immunoreactivity to CD31 although this is limited to the edges of the tissue fragments. The tumor cells are negative for HHV-8, CD34, smooth muscle actin, CK8/18, desmin, CD99, and Bcl-2. The combination of morphologic (see below for microscopic description) and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma. Fresh tissue was submitted for karyotype analysis at the time of intraoperative consultation; however, it revealed only a normal appearing male karyotype. Thus, molecular confirmation was sought. The original slides and a paraffin block were submitted for FOSB rearrangement analysis, as pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is known to have recurrent rearrangements with FOSB. Additional immunohistochemistry performed at (FACILITY) demonstrating immunoreactivity for ERG, supporting a vascular origin for this neoplasm. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated that 13% of the cells examined show FOSB rearrangement. While this FISH probe is for investigational purposes, the above findings support the diagnosis of pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date.

For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed?

First, reportability of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma changed from 8323/3 to 8323/1. Although it does not appear the standard-setters implemented this change, note of the conflict between the ICD-O-3.2 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STR) is not included in the Implementation Guidelines or STR. The current Note for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) was left in Table 1, so this presumably is still reportable. It would be helpful if the conflict with ICD-O-3.2 was addressed, especially since the existing Note refers to changes made back in 2016 (not 2018 or 2021).

Second, is the term sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma still coded as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma (8312) because sarcomatoid is referring to a pattern of differentiation or 8318 (renal cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid)? The STR, Table 1, lists sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma as 8312, but the ICD-O-3.2 lists this as 8318. The Note in Table 1 still indicates WHO/IARC and College of American Pathologists agree that sarcomatoid carcinoma is a pattern of differentiation, not a specific subtype, of renal cell carcinoma. This appears to conflict with WHO/IARC ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as it provides a different, specific histology code for this malignancy. How can WHO/IARC classify this both a pattern of renal cell carcinoma and a separate, specific histology?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Rule H13 states to code the histology to metaplastic carcinoma when there is metaplastic carcinoma (or a subtype/variant) and invasive carcinoma NST. This rule makes no mention of lobular carcinoma. However, in Table 3, Note 2 for metaplastic carcinoma (8575) states metaplastic carcinoma, NOS and subtypes are almost always mixed with invasive mammary carcinoma, NST and at times lobular carcinoma. These tumors should be coded to metaplastic regardless of percent invasive mammary carcinoma or lobular carcinoma present.

While Table 2 (the mixed histology code table) does include an entry for metaplastic carcinoma AND carcinoma NST OR lobular carcinoma, it is unclear why lobular carcinoma has not been added to Rule H13 as well.

If a single tumor has metaplastic plus lobular carcinoma, Rule H13 does not apply and one has to continue through the rules. Unfortunately, the next rule registrars would be tempted to use is Rule H18: Code the histology that comprises greater than 50% of tumor when two histologies are on different rows in Table 3. This Rule does not state it does NOT apply to metaplastic carcinoma (only mucinous). So, if for some reason the lobular was greater than 50%, the incorrect histology would be coded (unless the registrar happened to remember Note 2 in the metaplastic carcinoma entry in Table 3).

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules (STR) lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma as histology code 8312, but in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table it is listed as histology code 8311.

No changes were made in the Kidney STR. As a result, the histology change described in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table conflicts with Table 1. Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD) is listed in Table 1 as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312). However, the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists this as a related term for histology code 8311/3. This related term was not discussed in the Implementation Guidelines, and no change was noted in the STR.

While it seems we should continue to follow the STR, without clarification as to why this histology change was not implemented in STR, achieving consistency will be problematic if registrars jump straight to the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table to code histology for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. If this code cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that clarification be included in the STR?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.

7/8/16 Urinary bladder, biopsy: Non-invasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is not identified.

9/2/16 Urinary bladder, bladder tumor, transurethral resection: High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. No definite invasion identified. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is identified and not involved by tumor.

1/7/17 A\S\Bladder: Noninvasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Granulomatous cystitis, consistent with BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guerin) treatment. Lamina propria is not involved with tumor. Detrusor muscle is not identified.

4/4/17 Dome: Papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade. No evidence of invasion. Muscularis propria is not present.

Patient is clearly followed for at least a year but no further information until 19 months later, 11/14/18, when biopsy of lung indicates metastatic disease.

11/14/18 Lung, right lower lobe, mass, biopsy: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis results (CK7 positive, CK20 focally positive, P63 positive, GATA3 positive, TTF1 negative and NAPSIN-A negative) support the diagnosis

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes Mullerian mixed tumor as the preferred term for histology code 8950 (previously malignant mixed Mullerian tumor/MMMT). This table also includes carcinosarcoma, NOS as the preferred term for histology code 8980. Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table nor the Implementation Guidelines address the long-standing issue of coding histology for diagnoses of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor.

These endometrial primaries are frequently diagnosed as both carcinosarcoma and MMMT. The questions regarding histology coding for carcinosarcoma and carcinosarcoma/MMMT of the endometrium date back to before the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, with at least three SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8950/3 (MMMT) for diagnoses of MMMT. SINQ has instructed registrars that MMMT is a synonym for carcinosarcoma and these tumors should be coded to 8980 (carcinosarcoma), not to 8950 (MMMT). The most recent SINQ is partly inconsistent with the others, indicating 8950 can be used if the tumor is only described as MMMT. The other SINQ entries state carcinosarcoma should be used as it is the preferred term for MMMT. (See SINQ 20061008, 20100009, 20180071.)

The most recent SINQ (20180071) specifically indicates: According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition, MMMT (8950/3) is now a synonym for carcinosarcoma (8980/3) even though it has a separate ICD-O code. The ICD-O code for MMMT is no longer in the WHO book. However, MMMT is in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table and is not stated to be obsolete or a synonym. Which is correct, the clarification in the SINQ or the 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table?

For a 2021 diagnosis of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor, how should registrars code the histology? Follow the previous SINQ entries and Rule H17 to code the histology to 8980 when the diagnosis includes both carcinosarcoma and MMMT? Do these previous SINQ entries still apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.