SEER Inquiry System - Search

In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis?

In addition to the issue mentioned above, there is a SINQ answer that conflicts with the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table. SINQ 20130134 indicates indolent systemic mastocytosis is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. There is no date restriction indicating the SINQ note applies only for cases diagnosed 2010-2017. Since indolent systemic mastocytosis was changed to borderline (9741/1) for diagnosis year 2018+, should the diagnosis year range be updated for this SINQ answer?

In Appendix C- Breast (SEER Manual 2015) it states under the codes for TOTAL MASTECTOMY (Codes 40-49, 75): For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294). [SEER Note: Example of single primary with removal of involved contralateral breast--Inflammatory carcinoma involving both breasts. Bilateral simple mastectomies. Code Surgery of Primary Site 41 and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site 1.] HOWEVER, underneath that it states code 76 is used for: 76 Bilateral mastectomy for a single tumor involving both breasts, as for bilateral inflammatory carcinoma. So

In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol?

In Dec. 2003 a patient was diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma of the left palm. In Jan. 2004 the patient had an excision with skin graft and positive margins. Amputation was recommended but the patient chose radiation instead. In May 2006 the patient had a local excision positive for epithelioid sarcoma followed by an amputation of the thumb and index finger with positive margins. Then in April 2010, the patient had an amputation of the remnant of left hand up to the middle third of the forearm. Again, there was residual distal invasive tumor positive for epithelioid sarcoma.

In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?

Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.

Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor?

In ICD-O-3, chondroma and chondroblastoma are site-associated morphologies for bone. If a chondroma or a chondroblastoma occurs along the spinal cord, is this one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default site to bone and not to spinal cord?

Reference: ICD-O-3; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004; SINQ 20021152

In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3].

Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)?

in March, the patient with stage cT1c, Gleason grade 7, prostate cancer elected active surveillance. In April, the patient consented to treatment with Lupron. There was no evidence of disease progression. According to the rules on page 161 of the 2023 SEER manual, we think the answer is yes, but the reporting hospital states that this is second course therapy.

In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual.

Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype.

Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype?