SEER Inquiry System - Search

Per SINQ 20160068, sphenoid wing meningiomas are reportable (unless stated to be intraosseous) because they arise from the meninges overlying or along the sphenoid wing/sphenoid bone. These are intracranial and not intraosseous meningiomas.

Therefore, wouldn't this logic also apply to cavernous sinus meningiomas? These are tumors that arise from the meninges of an intracranial space, not from bone or soft tissue. The cavernous sinus is a "true dural venous sinus" within the skull. While not specifically about meningiomas, SINQ 20071095 states a benign tumor in the cavernous sinus is coded to C490. This SINQ would still seem valid for a benign tumor like a blood vessel tumor, but not for a meningioma that doesn't arise from soft tissue or blood vessels.

The race category in some hospital electronic medical record systems includes a combined category of “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.” What race code should be used in a situation where the only available information is “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander?”

In ICD-O-3, chondroma and chondroblastoma are site-associated morphologies for bone. If a chondroma or a chondroblastoma occurs along the spinal cord, is this one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default site to bone and not to spinal cord?

Reference: ICD-O-3; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004; SINQ 20021152

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.

The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, "Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue." This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?

Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists "DCIS: focally seen", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.

Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?