SEER Inquiry System - Search

An endometrial cancer was diagnosed in 2018. The endometrial biopsy showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (MMMT/Carcinosarcoma). The total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy showed Endometrial Carcinosarcoma (50% serous carcinoma, 50% high grade sarcoma with rhabdomyoblastic differentiation) with invasion of 100% of the myometrium and involvement of the uterine serosa. I am not finding this in the Solid Tumor Rules or the site-specific ICD-O-3 code lists.

Appendix E1 in both the 2023 and 2024 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) lists these malignant spindle cell neoplasms, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma, as reportable when other tumors have been ruled out with immunohistochemistry. This contradicts both SINQ 20190102 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) general instructions indicating ambiguous terminology (e.g., “consistent with”) cannot be used to code the more specific histology when there is a NOS (malignant spindle cell neoplasm, 8004/3) and a more specific (malignant atypical fibroxanthoma, 8830/3) histology.

These tumors are typically diagnosed and treated in dermatology offices, so further chart review or confirmation by a physician is not possible for central registries.

As non-melanoma skin primaries are included in the Other Sites schema, and this schema was updated for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, which instruction applies to 2023+ diagnoses? Should these continue to be collected per Appendix E1 despite the conflict with the STR Manual and SINQ? If these are reportable, should the SINQ and STR Manual be updated to reflect this? Or should these be non-reportable per the STR Manual and SINQ?

Appendix E1 of the 2018 SEER manual references a similar diagnosis as being reportable for vulva and vagina only. However, the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (4th ed) does include high grade penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a synonym for 8077/2.

Are any of the following cases reportable?

Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?

Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?

Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed?

Are histologic transformations always recurrences of the original tumor?

Are neuroepitheliomatous neoplasms such as ganglioneuroma, gangliocytoma, ganglioglioma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Are nerve sheath tumors such as neuroma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Angioma?

Reference: SINQ 20051071; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004

Are peritoneal implants mets and not counted as separate tumors, even though they're not stated to be metastatic in the path report, and are not coded as distant mets?

Are the areas of in situ tumor to be ignored or would MP/H Rule M9 apply?

Are the multiple primary rules applicable when a patient has multiple gastric carcinoid tumors? The patient was diagnosed with carcinoid tumors starting in 12/2003 through 3/2009. According to the 2004 SEER Manual, rule 5, if a tumor with the same histology is identified in the same site at least two months after the original diagnosis, this is a separate primary. The physician does not indicate that the pre-2007 carcinoid tumors were recurrent. The patient does not have familial polyposis syndrome. Should each of the following tumors be a separate primary?

12/2003 - Gastric Polyp Removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid tumor

05/2004 - Stomach body polyp removal - Path: Carcinoid Tumor (endocrine cell tumor)

09/2004 - Single polyp in body removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid

03/2005 - Multiple gastric body polyps removed - Path: Carcinoid tumor

07/2005 - 3 small polyps in fundus removal - Path: Carcinoid tumor

02/2007 - Localized nodularity in lesser curvature - Path: Carcinoid (neuroendocrine) tumor

03/2009 - Stomach body polypectomy - Path: Carcinoid tumor

Are there timing rules related to the comparison of slides from a subsequent hematopoietic primary diagnosis to the slides from the original hematopoietic primary diagnosis that impact the number or primaries reported?

For example, how many primaries are reported for a patient was diagnosed in 3/2010 with large B-cell lymphoma who underwent 7 rounds of chemo. Per 10/2010 PET scan, there was no evidence of disease. In 12/2010 a liver biopsy revealed, "features consistent with recurrence of previously diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma." The pathologist did not compare slides to the original, but several immunoperoxidase stains were done to obtain the final diagnosis in 12/2010.

Does timing or comparison to the original slides matter for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms? Is a comparison of slides needed as required for solid tumor "recurrences"?