SEER Inquiry System - Search

Does the rule on page 111 of the SEER Program Coding Manual, 3rd Edition, for code 1 apply to myelomas (in the same way it applies to leukemias)?

Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSCG) is a rare type of low-grade sweat gland carcinoma. Some journal articles indicate that most patients with EMPSCG have coexisting mucinous carcinomas, suggesting that EMPSCG is a precursor to invasive mucinous carcinoma of the skin. Sweat gland carcinoma has its own histology code per the ICD-O-3 (8400/3); should an endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma also be coded as 8400/3? If so, would the correct histology for the skin case above be mucinous carcinoma (8480/3) per Rule H17? Conversely, if the terms "mucin-producing" are referring to mucin-producing carcinoma, and not referring to the sweat gland carcinoma, would the histology be coded 8481/3 (mucin-producing carcinoma)?

Endometrial primary confirmed by biopsy on 10/26/06. Pelvic washing on 11/14/06 was 'suspicious for malignancy.' Resection path the same day stated the primary tumor invades the inner 1/3 of the myometrium.

Can we use the pelvic washing cytology & code CS extension 61 or should CS extension be coded 12?

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

Example #1: Cervix loop electrocautery excision procedure (LEEP) pathology: Histologic Type: Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated. Histologic Type Comments: High-risk HPV testing on previous Pap test sample reported as positive for high-risk HPV. The prior Pap diagnosis was HSIL only with molecular results positive for high-risk HPV.

Example #2: Cervix endocervical curettage and biopsy with CIN 3, p16 diffusely positive. Subsequent LEEP with superficially invasive squamous carcinoma (no HPV or p16 testing done). This was followed by an additional cone excision that was negative for residual malignancy and p16 testing was also negative.

Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term "residual" another way of saying recurrence?

Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries?

Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?

Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?

Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?

Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?

Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?

Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.

Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.

Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.

Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].

Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].