SEER Inquiry System - Search

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a.  There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b.  The patient has localized disease;

c.  The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

Patient has a remote history of a right thalamic mass status-post two resections; reported as malignant oligodendroglioma (pathology not received) and chemo/radiation therapy, who recently presented with persistent headaches. Imaging revealed a 3.4 cm heterogeneous lobulated right thalamic mass with coarse calcifications and a probable cystic component.

Pathologist indicates the histologic and immunophenotypic features of this neoplasm are that of relatively circumscribed neuroepithelial tumor without high grade features (mitotic activity, microvascular proliferation, necrosis). Molecularly this neoplasm is characterized by a PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, which has recently been proposed to be a distinct neuroepithelial tumor entity with a broad histological spectrum.

In the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update, the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma row in Table 2 was changed. The NOS histology became neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS (8246) and both large cell and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (8013 and 8041, respectively) became the subtype/variants. This change impacts Rule H4 but Rule H4 was not updated. Rule H4 still refers to small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma as being the NOS histology.

In the prior STR versions, it was clear the tumor in question would be coded as 8045 per Rule H4 and Table 2. Considering Rule H4 was not updated according to the changes for Table 2, does histology 8045 still apply to this diagnosis?

There is currently no way to arrive at a histology for this case. Does Rule H4, bullet 3 need to be updated to indicate, “subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma (does not apply to sarcoma)”?

Example Case 1:  2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type.

Example Case 2:  2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive.

Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)?

Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).

The case in question represents an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation that arises in the absence of androgen-deprivation therapy. A 2023 journal article states, “We show that amphicrine prostate cancer is a unique entity and differs in clinical and molecular features from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the prostate. Our study highlights the need to recognize AMPC as a unique molecularly defined subgroup of prostate cancer.”

Should we be coding this with histology 8140 (Adenocarcinoma, NOS) because we have no specific code for an amphicrine carcinoma? Should we code this as 8045 (Mixed small cell carcinoma) because this is possibly the only way to capture both the adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine components in a patient without previous treatment?

Our concern about using histology code 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation) is that, while a valid histology code, this might confound the data if researchers are trying to separate the truly treatment-related tumors from other histologies captured under 8574.

Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade

Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm

Pathology report 1/13/15, Histology - Transverse colon resection pathology = Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. The invasive adenocarcinoma arises in a sessile serrated adenoma.

In the NAACCR Coding Pitfalls 2023 webinar, the example of DCIS, solid type is given. The webinar advised us to code 8230/2 (ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type). When going through the beginning of the solid tumor rules in the Changes from 2007 MPH Rules section it states "DCIS/Carcinoma NST in situ has a major classification change. Subtypes/variant, architecture, pattern, and features ARE NOT CODED. The majority of in situ tumors will be coded to DCIS 8500/2." In the equivalent or equal terms section it lists "Type, subtype, variant" can be used interchangeably.

Since the example has it listed as as ductal carcinoma in situ, solid "type," would we code 8500/2 or 8230/2?