SEER Inquiry System - Search

The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries).

Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)?

How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)?

Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned.

Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case?

Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.”

Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case?

Example: Patient has a 04/2023 diagnosis of symptomatic anemia not responsive to Retacrit. Further testing includes diagnostic bone marrow biopsy 10/2023 proving MDS with low blasts and SF3B1 mutation, treated with Relozyl (Luspatercept).

There is no SEER*Rx listing for Reblozyl or Luspatercept. Per web search, Luspatercept, sold under the brand name Reblozyl, is a medication used for the treatment of anemia in beta thalassemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

Is this non-cancer directed treatment since it is given to address the anemia rather than the MDS? If cancer-directed treatment, how should it be coded?

Patient was diagnosed March 2024 with high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder during excision for clinical history of acute cholecystitis and obstruction.

Per the STR, Table 10 for Gallbladder and Extrahepatic Bile Duct Histologies shows Biliary intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade as code 8148/2. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia of the biliary tract is also code 8148/2.

Recent SINQ 20240021 (GI specific) indicates high grade dysplasia is reportable as high grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia (8148/2) for stomach, small intestine, and esophagus. Does the same hold true for gallbladder? If so, then it appears there is a conflict between STR and Appendix E2.

However, using the logic of SINQ 20240021 for this site would appear to contradict Appendix E2 which indicates high grade dysplasia in sites other than stomach, intestine, and esophageal sites is not reportable.

If we can code high grade dysplasia of GI sites to 8148/2, should we accession high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder and other biliary sites in a similar manner? If so, then Appendix E needs to be modified.

Patient was diagnosed March 2023 with a neuroendocrine tumorlet of the rectum measuring 0.8 mm via excisional biopsy during colonoscopy.

Prior SINQ 20160011 (stomach specific) indicates microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size.

Is the current rectal tumor a reportable gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor if it is less than 5 mm (i.e., is a neuroendocrine tumorlet equivalent to a microcarcinoid)?

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.

10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion).

12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas).

4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis.

Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior?

SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6?

The 2022 ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines indicate “Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” is 8263/2 and is not SEER reportable. However, the 2024 SEER Manual and clarification from recent SINQs (20240021 and 20240025) confirm high grade dysplasia in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine is reportable (8148/2).

Which reportability reference applies to a diagnosis of a tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia in non-colorectal sites?

We have had multiple users unable to find the applicable histology in the ICD-O-3.2 (i.e., the site-specific table did not include the histology) because they were using the annotated histology list and could not find the complete list of related terms or synonyms for the histology code.

For example, the ICD-O-3.2 lists Medulloblastoma, SHH-activated, NOS as a related term for 9471/3, but many users were unable to find this valid histology because they were using the annotated histology list, not the ICD-O-3.2.

Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor."

Patient was diagnosed on imaging with enhancement along the right optic nerve intraorbital segment, displacing the optic nerve, most consistent with optic nerve sheath meningioma.

Extracranial meningiomas are rare, however SINQ 20230052 does contain an exception for reportability in a different head and neck site because it is not an intracranial location.

It is unclear if this portion of the meninges surrounding the intraorbital optic nerve is still “intracranial” and thus reportable.