SEER Inquiry System - Search

Unlike most other sites, there is no specific code for a radical surgical procedure of a skin primary. In this case, the patient was diagnosed with a sebaceous cell carcinoma of the lower eyelid skin by punch biopsy. The tumor was large and an orbital exenteration was planned. Despite the extensive surgery performed, skin margins were less than 1 cm. Is an orbital exenteration a "major amputation" (code 60) in this case? Given that the margins were not greater than 1 cm, codes 45 - 47 (which includes a minor (local) amputation) don't seem to apply. However, if this procedure cannot be classified as "minor amputation" then doesn't it seem overkill to refer to the procedure as a "major amputation"?

An alternative would be to code Surgery of Primary Site to 32 for the skin resection (punch biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion, margins less than 1 cm) and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 (non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites) to record the removal of the globe and orbit as part of the orbital exenteration. Which is correct?

Urinary bladder: Invasive urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, 4.5cm, predominantly solid type, arising in background of carcinoma in-situ, carcinoma grossly extends into perivesical adipose tissue; lymph-vascular invasion is seen.

Urinary: Transitional Cell Carcinoma and open prostatectomy: Path from Bladder: Papillary and solid transitional cell carcinoma of bladder - grade II and III Stage A.

Path from prostatectomy: The prostatic tissue samples shows areas of urothelia carcinoma in situ - related to the tumor present in the bladder.

Conclusion: Prostatectomy showing foci of transitional cell carcinoma in situ of prostatic urethra.

Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.

For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002?

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium.

Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests...

Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21

Washington State added to birth certificates, which allows people to have their certificates changed to this non-binary gender designation. Gender X is defined as a gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to: intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified.

We are aware that squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II (e.g., AIN II), 8077/2 is reportable for 2021. However, because this is also called rather than high grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2), we are unsure about reportability. There is no known histology and behavior code for moderate squamous dysplasia, the classifications available are only low grade (8077/0) or high grade (8077/2).

We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3.

While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1.

We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051.  The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET).  Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET).  In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list.  Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else?  Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS.  For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.