SEER Inquiry System - Search

Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.

Since the peripheral nerves are included in the Malignant CNS schema of the Solid Tumor Rules, neither the differences in subsite nor timing indicate these are separate primaries (Rule M10 indicates a single primary). However, these are separate MPNSTs in different sites and the tumors are not stated to be metastasis. Additionally, these are treated as separate primaries by the managing physician.

While the malignant CNS tumors do not take timing into account, is this correct for these peripheral nerve tumors that are often treated similarly to soft tissue tumors? Should Rule M8 be updated to include tumors in different peripheral nerve subsites?

Since the synoptic report and final diagnosis are equal in priority, and the Solid Tumor Rules tell us to code the more specific histology, would this be coded to signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, 8490/3, even though the pathologist used features in the final diagnosis? There is no histology adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell features on the CAP Protocol, so the pathologist may check off the next closest histology " signet ring cell carcinoma " which would not be truly representative of the actual histology. Final Diagnosis: Proximal colon, segmental resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, with signet ring cell features. Synoptic Report A: Colon and Rectum - Resection Specimen Procedure: Right hemicolectomy, Tumor Site: Right (ascending) colon, Histologic Type: Signet-ring cell carcinoma, Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated.

SINQ #20021074 states that for cases up to 2003, if there are differences in ER/PR results, to code the positive findings over the negative findings. Does this hold true for coding SSF1 & SSF2 for breast?

Scenario: 10/19 Breast bx: ER + PR -; No date/specimen: ER/PR -; 12/3 Partial Mast: ER/PR +

SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents.

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?

SINQ 20031110 addresses an overlapping lip lesion between skin and the vermillion border. We were instructed to go with area of greatest involvement. Case would be reportable if >50% of tumor was on the vermillion border and site would be coded to vermillion border (C00._). Often times percentage of involvement is not stated and all that is known is that the lesion overlaps skin and mucosa.

SINQ 20041104 (prior to 2007 MP/H rules) states to code histology to 8045. The MP/H rules do not address this combination of urothelial and small cell carcinoma. The current MP/H rule that applies is Rule H8, code the higher histology (8120/3). However, if the histology is coded to 8120/3, the fact that small cell carcinoma exists will be lost. If the small cell carcinoma drives the treatment plan/prognosis, shouldn't this situation be reflected in the rules for coding histology?

SINQ 20081076 states carcinoid tumorlets of the lung are not reportable and are defined as being less than 5 mm in diameter and benign. Per the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumours, microcarcinoid tumors are precursor lesions/nodules measuring greater than 0.5 mm, but less than 5 mm (0.5 cm). Is the term microcarcinoid tumor equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet, and therefore not reportable? Or is a microcarcinoid tumor a reportable type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET)?

SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.

We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.

1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”

2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”