SEER Inquiry System - Search

Rule M15

Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions.

Note: The same row means the tumors are

• The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR

• One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR

• A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR

• A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant

Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3.

SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents.

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?

Starting for cases diagnosed in 2024, the SPCSM manual no longer requires the data items for clinical and pathologic tumor size.  Instead, it appears to align with the CoC data item of Tumor Size Summary.  The two manuals contradict each other when it comes to coding tumor size summary for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) treated cancers.  

STORE states: "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999."  

2024 SPCSM states "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999." It continues to state     

 12. Assign code 000 when…. (a) no residual tumor is found…(i) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and the resection shows no residual tumor &

14. Assign code 999 when...(d) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and resection was performed. Do not use a post-neoadjuvant size to code pathologic tumor size; however, you may use the clinical tumor size if available

It seems that we will lose the value of the tumor size summary if we code 000 when NAC is administered and there is no residual disease. 

Example: Patient has a 90 mm triple positive breast tumor and is treated with neoadjuvant TCHP (docetaxel/carboplatin/ trastuzumab/pertuzumab). After completing neoadjuvant therapy, the patient has a mastectomy with no residual disease noted on the final pathology report. 

Using the 2024 SPCSM instructions, code 000 for Tumor Size Summary instead of 090 for the clinical tumor size of 90 mm tumor noted before NAC was administered. This has the potential to affect data analysis, research, and clinical trial accrual.

6/8/2023

A. Left nasal mass: Sinonasal glomangiopericytoma B. Additional left nasal mass: Sinonasal glomangiopericytoma

Is this a borderline tumor? I am unable to find in this in the ICD-O-3 purple book or the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules.

Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Rule M5 instructs us to abstract a single primary (as malignant) when a single tumor is originally diagnosed as non-malignant, the “First course treatment was active surveillance (no tumor resection),” and the subsequent resection pathology is malignant.

This patient’s first course of treatment was not active surveillance. While the patient did not have first course tumor resection, the tumor was treated with Cabergoline.

Should Rule M5 apply because there was no tumor resection? If so, should Rule M5 clearly state no tumor resection is the criteria (not active surveillance)?

SINQ 20230023 does indicate a PitNET diagnosis following a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma does not fall into standard rules, but in the previous SINQ the first course treatment was a partial resection.

It is unclear whether other types of treatment could result in a new malignant PitNET, following a previously treated non-malignant pituitary tumor.

The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids contain notes that say beginning 1/1/2022, keratinizing or non-keratinizing SCCs, HPV positive or HPV negative, are coded 8085 or 8086, respectively, for sites listed in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 only.

Table 5 introductory section also states for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward: “When the diagnosis is a subtype/variant of squamous cell carcinoma and HPV status is also noted, code the subtype/variant.” This latter instruction is also included in Other Sites Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as a “Penis Coding Note.”

Do these instructions ONLY apply to sites on those tables (and only to Penis or to Scrotum also in Table 23)? How should we code HPV-related keratinizing/non-keratinizing or other subtype/variant SCCs, for sites NOT on those tables, given the fact that only the more common histologies are listed in the Solid Tumor tables? For example, we recently reviewed a case with HPV-positive basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (C21.0).

An 80-year-old post-menopausal female (status post hysterectomy for benign reasons) presents with a retroperitoneal mass on imaging. The pre-operative imaging shows the cervix and uterus are absent. Patient undergoes a robotic left salpingo-oophorectomy with biopsy of the retroperitoneal mass.

The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.”

Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist.