SEER Inquiry System - Search

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.”

If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2?

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?

Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) became reportable (9174/3) for diagnoses 2023 and later. While this neoplasm was only added to the Lung schema in the Solid Tumor Rules manual, this is a mesenchymal neoplasm which may arise outside of the lung and the reportability change was not limited to LAM of the lung.

How should primary site be coded when a left pelvic lymph node dissection for an unrelated high-grade serous carcinoma of the right fallopian tube incidentally proved LAM in the pelvic lymph nodes? The pelvic lymph nodes were the only site of involvement; there was no evidence of lung involvement. As this is a mesenchymal tumor, should the primary site default to C499 (Soft tissue, NOS) according to the default primary site rule for sarcomas described in the SEER Manual? Or should the primary site be coded to C775 (Pelvic lymph nodes) as this was the only proven site of involvement?

There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries?

Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC).

Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction.

If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11.

Patient is diagnosed March 2021, with malignant pleural effusion, clinical impression supports either endometrial or tubo-ovarian primary and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is given. Subsequent total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) in July, shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right fallopian tube and bilateral ovaries, as well as bilateral STIC. Summary Stage lists tumor site as right fallopian tube, with the serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) noted under “additional findings.”

Should the contralateral (left-sided) STIC be accessioned as an additional primary, per MP/H Rule M8, the since fallopian tubes are listed in Table 1 as Paired Organs with Laterality?