SEER Inquiry System - Search

In the old 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions section, oat cell carcinoma (8042) was listed as one of the obsolete terms that was no longer recognized for small cell carcinoma.  That note is not in the current 2018 Solid Tumor Manual lung chapter, and ICDO-3.2 lists oat cell carcinoma as the preferred term for code 8042/3.  Would rule H4, Note 2 apply -- only one histology present, if not listed in Table 3 use ICD-O and all updates, to code oat cell carcinoma as 8042/3?

In the past SEER has advised coding these cases to extension 60. However, SS2000 states to code these cases to distant.

1. Primary in the cerebrum, hypothalamic region, with drop mets to spinal cord.

2. Primary in the cerebellum with spinal cord drop mets.

3. Primary in the fourth ventricle, with drop mets along the spinal cord.

In the past, the SEER Manual indicated that code 30 [subcutaneous mastectomies], which captured nipple-sparing mastectomies, would rarely be used because it was not typically performed as treatment for a malignancy. This note was removed from the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C. Code 30 which now states, "A subcutaneous mastectomy is the removal of breast tissue without the nipple and areolar complex or overlying skin." More "nipple-sparing mastectomies" are now being performed at certain facilities.

Should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded to 30 when a nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction is performed, even if there is skin removal? Or, does the skin removal indicate that this is not a subcutaneous mastectomy, and therefore code 43 [Total (simple) mastectomy with reconstruction, NOS] applies?

In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension.

In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?

The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit?

In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology.

Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018.

In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach?

Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.

The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?

Insulinoma, NOS is reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the diagnosis of insulinoma is most frequently made with clinical correlation of the patient's clinical syndrome and serum hormone levels. Despite a pathological diagnosis of NET, this will clinically be stated as insulinoma based on the functional type of tumor. At the largest facility in our area, all pathology reports with a diagnosis of insulinoma over the last year only provide a pathological Final Diagnosis of NET (either G1 or G2), but elsewhere specify, Functional Type: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, functional. Correlation with Clinical Syndrome and Elevated Serum Levels of Hormone Product: Insulin-producing (Insulinoma).

For 2021 and later, it seems this should be accessioned as insulinoma (8151/3), but one cannot arrive at that histology using the current Other Sites (MP/H) H Rules. Following the existing rules, one would code the histology to NET, G1 or NET, G2 (8240 or 8249) per Rule H6. There are technically two specific histologies to consider: NET (either 8240 or 8249) and insulinoma, NOS (8151). Following the H Rules, Rule H6 instructs one to code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8240 or 8249).

Coding this histology to NET (8240 or 8249) does not seem to reflect the most accurate classification of this tumor, but applying the current rules, this is the only histology that can be coded. There is no current guideline in the Other Sites schema or the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines instructing us to ignore the pathological diagnosis of a NET for these tumors (even though insulinomas are NETs). The only SINQ that currently exists (SINQ 20150019) states the histology can be coded as either a NET or an insulinoma in these cases. How are registrars to consistently code histology for these tumors without a rule clarification?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

Intestine, large -- moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma

Pathological stage: IIIA (T2 N1a Mx) -- Neuroendocrine tumor, G1

Addendum comment: The results of the immunochemical study are compatible with a neuroendocrine tumor, G1.