SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was diagnosed March 2024 with high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder during excision for clinical history of acute cholecystitis and obstruction.

Per the STR, Table 10 for Gallbladder and Extrahepatic Bile Duct Histologies shows Biliary intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade as code 8148/2. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia of the biliary tract is also code 8148/2.

Recent SINQ 20240021 (GI specific) indicates high grade dysplasia is reportable as high grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia (8148/2) for stomach, small intestine, and esophagus. Does the same hold true for gallbladder? If so, then it appears there is a conflict between STR and Appendix E2.

However, using the logic of SINQ 20240021 for this site would appear to contradict Appendix E2 which indicates high grade dysplasia in sites other than stomach, intestine, and esophageal sites is not reportable.

If we can code high grade dysplasia of GI sites to 8148/2, should we accession high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder and other biliary sites in a similar manner? If so, then Appendix E needs to be modified.

Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification.

Rule M15

Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions.

Note: The same row means the tumors are

• The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR

• One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR

• A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR

• A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant

Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3.

There appears to be discrepant information in the 2024 (and prior) SEER manual regarding race coding when the patient is described only as Hispanic/Latina. Page 78 tells us to Code as 01 (White) when: b. There is a statement that the patient is Hispanic or Latino(a) and no further information is available

1. A person of Spanish origin may be any race; however, for coding race when there is no further information other than “Hispanic” or “Latino(a),” assign race as White as a last resort instead of coding unknown.

However, in Appendix D, under "Other Race descriptions", there is a statement that "If no further information is available, code as 99 Unknown." The list includes "Hispanic."

In the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update, the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma row in Table 2 was changed. The NOS histology became neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS (8246) and both large cell and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (8013 and 8041, respectively) became the subtype/variants. This change impacts Rule H4 but Rule H4 was not updated. Rule H4 still refers to small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma as being the NOS histology.

In the prior STR versions, it was clear the tumor in question would be coded as 8045 per Rule H4 and Table 2. Considering Rule H4 was not updated according to the changes for Table 2, does histology 8045 still apply to this diagnosis?

There is currently no way to arrive at a histology for this case. Does Rule H4, bullet 3 need to be updated to indicate, “subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma (does not apply to sarcoma)”?

Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Rule M5 instructs us to abstract a single primary (as malignant) when a single tumor is originally diagnosed as non-malignant, the “First course treatment was active surveillance (no tumor resection),” and the subsequent resection pathology is malignant.

This patient’s first course of treatment was not active surveillance. While the patient did not have first course tumor resection, the tumor was treated with Cabergoline.

Should Rule M5 apply because there was no tumor resection? If so, should Rule M5 clearly state no tumor resection is the criteria (not active surveillance)?

SINQ 20230023 does indicate a PitNET diagnosis following a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma does not fall into standard rules, but in the previous SINQ the first course treatment was a partial resection.

It is unclear whether other types of treatment could result in a new malignant PitNET, following a previously treated non-malignant pituitary tumor.

The race category in some hospital electronic medical record systems includes a combined category of “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.” What race code should be used in a situation where the only available information is “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander?”

Patient was diagnosed in July 2022 with biopsy confirmed left kidney renal cell carcinoma. Initially, partial nephrectomy was planned for February 2023 but canceled at the last moment due to the patient’s “history of narcotic use.” The details of that cancellation were otherwise unclear. It appears the treatment plan was changed due to patient non-compliance.

Patient then had cryoablation of the tumor in May of 2023. Subsequent imaging in October found residual tumor, but no disease progression was noted. Again, additional ablation was offered but patient decided on surgical treatment which did not occur until December 2023.

Is the cryoablation second course due to a change of plan if there is no disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure?

If the cryoablation is first course treatment, then would the partial resection also be first course treatment because it was documented as the treatment plan?

Patient was diagnosed on imaging with enhancement along the right optic nerve intraorbital segment, displacing the optic nerve, most consistent with optic nerve sheath meningioma.

Extracranial meningiomas are rare, however SINQ 20230052 does contain an exception for reportability in a different head and neck site because it is not an intracranial location.

It is unclear if this portion of the meninges surrounding the intraorbital optic nerve is still “intracranial” and thus reportable.