SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Patient diagnosed following a resection of a cystic mass at L2-4 that proved an intradural tumor excision with final diagnosis of schwannoma, WHO grade 1.

Per new Solid Tumor Rules, the primary site in this case should be coded C476 (peripheral nerves of trunk, NOS) and histology is 9560/0 (schwannoma, NOS). However, there are currently no coding options in the Soft Tissue of Trunk and Extremities EOD schema relating to a benign tumor. Likewise there are no coding options in the Soft Tissue and Sarcoma Summary Stage 2018 schema relating to a benign tumor.

How should EOD 2018 and Summary Stage 2018 be coded for reportable benign schwannomas of the spinal nerve roots?

The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa.

Example: FoundationAct assay of circulating tumor DNA in blood sample results: Tumor type = non-small cell lung carcinoma, NOS, with 3 genomic alterations identified: NRAS Q61H, IDH2 R140Q and TP53 V172F. The tumor was identified on imaging and the imaging findings were not clearly what one would expect to see with a SCLC.

In addition to the issue mentioned above, there is a SINQ answer that conflicts with the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table. SINQ 20130134 indicates indolent systemic mastocytosis is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. There is no date restriction indicating the SINQ note applies only for cases diagnosed 2010-2017. Since indolent systemic mastocytosis was changed to borderline (9741/1) for diagnosis year 2018+, should the diagnosis year range be updated for this SINQ answer?

Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?

The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.

However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?

Example: Left breast total mastectomy final diagnosis is incidental microscopic findings suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. The diagnosis comment states: The left breast mastectomy shows mildly atypical cells within the nipple epidermis which are suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. Additional sampling of the left breast was performed, and no evidence of atypical hyperplasia, in situ carcinoma, or invasive carcinoma within the left breast tissue was identified.

Would this case be non-reportable using rationale similar to an early/evolving melanoma per SINQ 20180029?

Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.

In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.

It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.