SEER Inquiry System - Search

It appears an argument could be made for both NLPHL (9659/3) and THRLBCL (9688/3). We favor coding NLPHL (9659/3) because the pathologist did specifically call this a Hodgkin lymphoma, and also specified that it only has a T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like pattern.

The note in the Urinary Terms and Definition states, Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. While it is true that both Ta and Tis are technically noninvasive, the AJCC defines Ta specifically for, A pathologist's use of Ta does indicate the noninvasive carcinoma did arise from a papillary tumor. However, not all pathologists use terminology that, following the Urinary Solid Tumor Histology Coding Rules, will result in a histology coded to 8130, despite an AJCC-defined Ta (noninvasive papillary carcinoma) tumor having been diagnosed because the tumor projected from the wall on a stalk.

In our region a number of pathologists provide the following types of diagnosis.

Histologic type: Noninvasive.

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): High-grade.

Tumor configuration: Papillary.

The pathologist and/or physician may then stage this as Ta. How is the histology coded for these cases if the H Rules do not allow one to code the papillary and noninvasive Ta disease as not equivalent to noninvasive papillary carcinoma?

Flat (in situ) urothelial carcinoma has an increased risk of invasive disease compared to the noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. Will there be inconsistencies or a resulting impact to analysis of truly flat/in situ urothelial carcinoma vs. papillary urothelial carcinomas if the papillary tumors are not being coded as such?

Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.

The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.

The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.

The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).

As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?