SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example

Chest CT: "Almost complete consolidation of RUL and superior segment of RLL, highly suspicious for malignancy and represents primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise. Multiple pulmonary masses bilaterally consistent with metastatic disease."

The physician describes multiple masses throughout RLL and LLL of lung suspicious for met disease, particularly lesion in LLL measuring 2.5 cm. The 2 cm mass in right lung abuts pleura, another mass in RLL measures 2.5 cm, smaller nodules in RLL and another 1 cm lesion abuts the pleura. Bx of a rt supraclavicular LN is positive for met carcinoma c/w lung primary.

Would primary site be coded to RLL because the scan states that the lesions on the right side represent primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise and the 2.5 cm lesion in the RLL is the location of the largest tumor on the right? Or should site be coded to right lung, NOS and size to unknown because there is no clear statement as to which lesion on the right represents the primary tumor? If the site is lung, NOS, would CS Extension be coded to 65 to describe the multiple nodules in the RLL?

Example

Multicentric infiltrating lobular carcinoma of left breast treated with MRM. Microscopic summary: Blood/lymphatic Vessel Invasion: present. Path final diagnosis: Angiolymphatic invasion present, including dermal lymphatic invasion in nipple. Micro: There is angiolymphatic invasion, including dermal capillary invasion identified in sections of the nipple.

The path report describes multiple breast tumors, none of which is located adjacent to the nipple.

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)?

Example:

10/30/98 CXR: Widespread malignancy, hilar, superior mediastinal masses, bilateral pleural effusions, fullness in soft tissue right neck.

11/01/98 CT chest/ABD: Extensive infiltrate mediastinum by radiolucent tumor mass that engulfs esophagus/trachea. Pleural effusion extends so low it apes ascites. Normal ABS/pelvis.

11/01/98 Pathology: FNA right supraclavicular lymph node: metastic oat cell ca. Sputum cytology reported to be negative.

Example: 12/2023 Breast lumpectomy final diagnosis is Invasive ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type. This is a single tumor with no in situ carcinoma present.

Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma is not listed as a subtype/variant or synonym for breast carcinoma in the Solid Tumor Rules histology tables.

Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease?

Example:

Vag & Cervical Thin-Prep: Adenocarcinoma, endometrial, high grade.

Resected Uterus and Left Adnexa: Endometrial papillary serous carcinoma arising in an endometrial polyp.

Example: A prostatectomy was done on 6/29. The physician staged the case as a "C" on 7/2 and as T3a on 8/6. It appears the physician is interpreting the following pathology information as unilateral extracapsular extension: "The tumor on the right extends to the inked surface of the gland. In this area the capsule appears absent." Should pathologic extension be coded to unilateral extracapsular extension [42]?

Example: An in situ bladder case was diagnosed and treated. Three months later another TURB diagnosed an invasive bladder carcinoma. Is the invasive case reportable to SEER as a new primary?

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.