SEER Inquiry System - Search

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium.

Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests...

Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21

Washington State added to birth certificates, which allows people to have their certificates changed to this non-binary gender designation. Gender X is defined as a gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to: intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified.

We are aware that squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II (e.g., AIN II), 8077/2 is reportable for 2021. However, because this is also called rather than high grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2), we are unsure about reportability. There is no known histology and behavior code for moderate squamous dysplasia, the classifications available are only low grade (8077/0) or high grade (8077/2).

We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3.

While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1.

We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051.  The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET).  Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET).  In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list.  Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else?  Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS.  For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.

We are confused by the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction that states: This sequence number counts all tumors that were reportable in the year they were diagnosed even if the tumors occurred before the registry existed or before the registry participated in the SEER Program. Does this rule apply to benign and borderline CNS tumors?

Does this mean that any non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 should NOT be included in the sequencing (in the 60s range) if we were collecting non-malignant CNS per our State Registry reporting requirements prior to 2004?

Example: Patient has a March 2017 diagnosis of right sided vestibular schwannoma (C724-1, 9560/0) and a prior history of left sided acoustic neuroma (c724-2, 9560/0) diagnosed in 1991. How should sequence be coded for each primary in our file?

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

We are increasingly seeing pathologists use this terminology to describe WHO G2 meningiomas, but the histology term "Atypical meningioma" is not being used, and a more specific "Histological Classification" of other WHO Grade 2 meningiomas (i.e., chordoid or clear cell meningioma) is not given. Can the combination of meningioma, WHO Grade 2 plus the histological classification listing multiple features of an atypical meningioma be used to code morphology to 9539/1? Or is this just a meningioma, NOS 9530/0 despite the WHO Grade 2 classification?

We are preparing to send our hospitals a reminder that the behavior changes from 2 to 3 at the bottom of the basement membrane, and the T category changes from Tis to T1 at the bottom of the mucosa for colon and rectum carcinomas. We are confused by the wording of the Exception.

Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System

1.b. If the tumor has penetrated the basement membrane to invade the lamina propria, in which case it is localized and assigned Summary Stage 1 (localized) and for invasion of the lamina propria

Exception: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes cancer cells confined within the glandular basement membrane (intraepithelial); includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)

The text following (intraepithelial) is unclear. The question is: Does the text include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) mean the following:

Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma. In situ plus intramucosal carcinoma is involvement of the lamina propria, which may involve (but not penetrate through) the muscularis mucosae. Penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior 3. If that is what the text above means, then it seems that the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Manual is saying colorectal tumors reported as: adenocarcinoma in situ, at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, focally intramucosal at the margin are to be coded behavior 2 and SEER Summary stage In situ (0) like the intraepithelial carcinoma tumors. However, it conflicts with the EOD Data for Colon and Rectum, Note 2, and SINQ 20210006. The text for both EOD Data for Colon and Rectum and SINQ 20210006 is clear. According to them, the above bulleted adenocarcarcinoma examples are coded SEER Summary Stage localized (1) and behavior 3. SINQ 20210006 states that: For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion So, intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3).

According to the text for EOD Primary Tumor, Colon and Rectum, Note 2 below, intramucosal, NOS involvement is invasive.

Note 2: Code 050 (behavior code 3) includes the following:

Intramucosal, NOS

Lamina propria

Mucosa, NOS

Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa

Thank you for your help clarifying the 2018 SEER Summary Manual Exception text above.