SEER Inquiry System - Search

1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.

2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.

Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.

However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?

Does Rule H19 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8221 [adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps] because there are multiple polyps (number not specified) throughout the colon? Does tumor have to arise in at least one of the adenomas in order to apply Rule H19?

Or, does Rule H22 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because the adenocarcinomas are both frank invasive adenocarcinomas and not adenocarcinoma arising in an adenoma?

Some facilities in our reporting region submit pathology reports that document invasive melanoma cases with a subtype stated to be a "growth pattern." The MP/H rules state that we are not to use the term "pattern" to code the histology of invasive tumors. However, applying this rule means the more specific histology will not be recorded for any of these cases. Can the term "growth pattern" be a more specific histologic type for invasive melanomas when no other information is available?

4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded

7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.

Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.

Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here?

Example: Patient has a left cerebral meningioma that is meningothelial meningioma (9531) and two right-sided cerebral meningiomas: one that is transitional meningioma (9537) and the other that is meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I. If the histology for the mixed tumor is 9534 (angiomatous meningioma), then there are three primaries. If the histology is 9537 (transitional meningioma), then there are two primaries.

Per Table 6, angiomatous meningioma is 9534/0 and transitional meningioma is 9537/0. There is no mixed histology coding rule, or mixed histology meningioma code. There is also no default rule that would instruct registrars to code the numerically higher ICD-O code or to default to a meningioma (NOS) histology code.

Should histology be coded as paraganglioma, NOS (8680/3) or as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) for a diagnosis of paraganglioma in the bladder? Does the pathologist have to specifically diagnose the tumor as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS to use histology code 8693/3? Or, does any diagnosis of paraganglioma (NOS) arising outside of the adrenal gland, carotid body, middle ear, or aortic body (the specified sites for other types of paragangliomas) qualify as an extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS?

The ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines (Tables 6 and 7) provide an associated site of C755 for histology 8680/3 (paraganglioma, NOS), but no associated site code is provided for histology 8693/3 (extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS). If the preferred site for paraganglioma, NOS is the paraganglia, would a paraganglioma in the bladder be an extra-adrenal paraganglioma?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

SINQ 20041104 (prior to 2007 MP/H rules) states to code histology to 8045. The MP/H rules do not address this combination of urothelial and small cell carcinoma. The current MP/H rule that applies is Rule H8, code the higher histology (8120/3). However, if the histology is coded to 8120/3, the fact that small cell carcinoma exists will be lost. If the small cell carcinoma drives the treatment plan/prognosis, shouldn't this situation be reflected in the rules for coding histology?