SEER Inquiry System - Search

In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?

Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.

Example: MRI found an intradural, extra-axial mass at T12/L1 with possible intramedullary component. Resection of the intradural intramedullary and extramedullary spinal cord tumor found a capillary hemangioma pathologically. The microscopic description on the path report describes a tumor with extensive vascularity involving the dura.

Should we equate the statement of capillary to mean the tumor is arising in a blood vessel as we do for venous hemangioma (non-reportable per SINQ 20130001)? Or should it be reportable as C700, 9131/0 because it is described as involving the dura (intradural, intramedullary and extramedullary)?

We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051.  The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET).  Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET).  In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list.  Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else?  Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS.  For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.

Example: Mastectomy specimen final diagnosis shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma including: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma (tumor #1, 1 cm, slices 6 and 7) and invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type (tumor #2, 1.2 cm, slices 9 and 10).

Summary Staging outlines, Tumor #1: Histologic Type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma. As well as, Tumor #2: Histologic type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type. Additional findings include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): presently approximately 3.3 cm, spanning slices 10-13.

The behavior of the solid papillary carcinoma component will affect the provisional histology of the first tumor (8523/3) per Rule H17 vs. 8500/3 per Rule H7). Based on the response, we can determine whether this represents a single or multiple primaries (single primary per M13 vs. multiple primaries per M14).

The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?

This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor.

Operative report indicates a wire localized lumpectomy was performed. The pathology report includes a final diagnosis for two specimens as follows:

A) LEFT BREAST, EXCISION: INFILTRATING DUCTAL CARCINOMA

B) LEFT BREAST, NEW DEEP MARGIN, EXCISION: BENIGN BREAST TISSUES AND BENIGN FIBROFATTY SOFT TISSUES; NO EVIDENCE OF NEOPLASIA.

The definition for Breast surgery code 23 is "Reexcision of the biopsy site for gross or microscopic residual disease". There is no indication whether the re-excision has to be a separate procedure or can be during the same procedure as the excisional biopsy (lumpectomy). Some hospital registrars in our region believe code 22 is more appropriate.

Example: Operative report documents a left breast skin sparing mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy procedure. Pathology report lists left axillary sentinel nodes in specimen A) with 0/2 nodes positive, and left breast mastectomy without axilla in specimen B) yielding an additional 0/2 intramammary nodes positive. Would the Scope of Regional Node Surgery be coded as 2 (SLN biopsy) to capture the intent of the sentinel node procedure only, or 6 (code 2 + 4) to capture the actual type and number of nodes removed?

SEER Coding and Staging Manual includes Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery instruction 4.b. which mentions assigning code 4 to intra-organ node removal. Similarly, there is instruction for coding SLN biopsy as code 2 and SLN biopsy with axillary dissection at the same time (code 6) or during separate procedures (code 7). However, it is not clear this combination code is how we should also capture an incidental intra-organ node removal.