SEER Inquiry System - Search

The AJCC 8th edition confirms that the identification of psammomatous calcifications within a cervical lymph node is metastatic disease.

Example: Patient had a thyroid lobectomy and level VI neck node excision in August 2022. The final diagnosis is multifocal papillary carcinoma of the thyroid, as well as rare psammomatous calcifications only in the resected node. The pathologist notes that “psammoma bodies only” in lymph nodes is not well defined, and while indolent, they do indicate capacity for lymphatic spread and are pN1a.

Should thyroid primaries with cervical node psammomatous calcifications get captured in EOD Regional Nodes category as it is in the AJCC pN staging?

1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%?

2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used?  For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions?

Patient had a hemithyroidectomy with the final diagnosis above. There does not appear to be an Other Sites H rule or table that addresses this combination of histologies for thyroid primaries.

Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538?

Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology.

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

In the examples below, are these a single or multiple primaries?

Example 1:

Tumor 1:  C509/left breast, 8520/2 (in situ lobular carcinoma), dx date-01/10/2019

Tumor 2:  C509/ left breast, 8500/3 (carcinoma NST), dx date-08/19/2021

Example 2:

Tumor 1:  C509, right breast, 8520/2, dx date 06/26/2014

Tumor 2:  C508, right breast, 8500/3, dx date-05/23/2019

There seems to be some conflicting info on this. In the 2020 Breast Rules there was a note add to the revision history. “M10 Same behavior requirement re-added.” Which is not in the rules now, nor was it noted to the revision changes in the last two change logs.

Inquiry 20200070 would seem to indicate that this is multiple primaries, but that contrasts with 20230010 which would seem to indicate a single primary, and an ASK A SEER Registrar question that we received a response to. I don’t see a scenario where rule M17, an invasive tumor DX more than 60 days after an in situ tumor would come into play.

If behavior no longer applies to rule M10, at what point did that change get made? Please advise.

Per Solid Tumor Manual Other Sites Rule M6, despite the number of areas of involvement, any presentation of Kaposi sarcoma is always a single primary. The primary site is skin using the Kaposi Sarcoma for All Sites Coding Guidelines (Appendix C, 2023 SEER Manual). 

Does SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Laterality Coding Instruction #4 preclude the use of code 4 [Bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis...] if a patient presents with KS involvement of only both arms or only both sides of the face?

In 2021, the patient was diagnosed with a non-reportable appendiceal LAMN.  Resection showed a tumor diffusely involving the appendix and perforating the visceral peritoneum, as well as extensive intraperitoneal metastasis.  In 2023, a lung wedge resection revealed metastatic mucinous neoplasm involving lung parenchyma and pleura, consistent with metastasis of the known appendiceal primary.  It is understood that intraperitoneal spread of an appendiceal LAMN does not make it reportable because the peritoneal disease is also non-invasive.  Does extraperitoneal metastasis of an appendiceal LAMN diagnosed prior to 2022 make it invasive disease and therefore reportable?