SEER Inquiry System - Search

The Solid Tumor Rules state that for cases diagnosed in 2022 and forward, p16 testing CAN be used to assign histology code 8085 (squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive). The rules also state that for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022, code 8085 MUST be based on ISH testing and not p16. ISH testing is not specifically addressed for 2022+ cases, but are we correct in assuming it can still be used as the basis for 8085?

Multiple CAnswer Forum posts and the AJCC 8th edition Head and Neck staging webinar indicate that the correct chapter/registry staging schema in this situation is determined ONLY by p16 results - not ISH testing, and therefore the Schema Discriminator 2 SSDI should be coded as 1 – p16 negative, regardless of ISH results.

While we understand that histology codes should not be changed based on staging criteria, there is a SEER/NAACCR edit, “Schema Discriminator 2, Head and Neck, Histology (NAACCR)” tag number N6802, that will not allow coding 8085 if Schema Discriminator 2 is coded as 1 (p16 negative). The edit does seem to be correctly enforcing the AJCC guidelines for choosing the staging schema, based on the sources noted above. Do the Solid Tumor or Site-Specific Data Items (SSDI) guidelines need to be modified for this situation?

The 11/2023 lower gum tumor is a separate tumor occurring after a disease-free interval, so we know the Head and Neck Multiple Tumors Module applies. However, our staff is having difficulty applying the rules to this particular scenario with consistent results.

Is the 11/2023 SCC a non-reportable recurrence per M12, since M4 is ignored due to patient’s prior 2017 C031 (lower gum) primary, and then M6 is ignored due to patient’s prior 05/2022 C023 primary?

Or is the 11/2023 SCC a new primary per M4, since the last diagnosis was in a site differing at the third character (C03 vs C02)? If M4 does not apply due to patient's previous C03 primary, then does M6 apply since it has been more than 5 years since the previous C03 primary?

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?

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).

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?

There appears to be discrepant information in the 2024 (and prior) SEER manual regarding race coding when the patient is described only as Hispanic/Latina. Page 78 tells us to Code as 01 (White) when: b. There is a statement that the patient is Hispanic or Latino(a) and no further information is available

1. A person of Spanish origin may be any race; however, for coding race when there is no further information other than “Hispanic” or “Latino(a),” assign race as White as a last resort instead of coding unknown.

However, in Appendix D, under "Other Race descriptions", there is a statement that "If no further information is available, code as 99 Unknown." The list includes "Hispanic."

10/25/2023:  Patient presents to dermatology office with a questionable drug eruption having 3 weeks of papular eruptions of Trunk (Left Chest). Punch biopsies were taken that came back as immature hemopoietic infiltrate with monocytic differentiation. Comment: Myelodysplastic syndrome and leukemia cutis are possibilities. Addendum Report: Additional stains were prepared. ERG is strongly positive. CD1a and S100 do not stain the atypical cells.The controls stain appropriately. CD123 perform with appropriate control is also negative. The pattern is that of so-called "leukemia cutis" which could be seen in the clinical setting of myelodysplasia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) or precursor to acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AMML). Recommend work up. The only available information at present is a diagnosis of leukemia cutis, and that there was no prior history of a hematological malignancy in this patient.

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?

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.