SEER Inquiry System - Search

This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease.  This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500.  Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells).  Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant.  Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant.  This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category).  Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field?  In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)?

The 2023 SEER Manual instructions contain a new note in Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedure, Coding Instruction 6, regarding bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) when performed for hormonal effect for breast, endometrial, vaginal, and other primary cancers. While we have observed BSO being performed for breast primaries, we do not recall ever seeing a statement for endometrial or vaginal primaries regarding a “BSO being done as hormonal manipulation” when scheduled either with or without a hysterectomy being performed simultaneously. As a result, we are not clear exactly when a BSO would be captured in the Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedure field for these gynecologic primary sites.

Also, if these types of procedures are Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedures, are they also captured and coded in the Surgery of Primary Site codes that directly relate to those same organs? Does timing have any effect on the coding of either field?

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.

For C220-C221 primaries, Surgery of Primary Site includes code A150 for Alcohol tumor destruction (percutaneous ethanol injection/intratumoral injection of alcohol/alcohol ablation). The SEER and STORE manuals also indicate that alcohol embolization should be coded as Other Therapy, code 1. We are trying to determine whether alcohol embolization should be coded under Surgery of Primary Site or Other Therapy.

The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.

Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?

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?

Serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant (8460/2, C569) was included in the ICD-O-3 Behavior Code/term updates effective 1/1/2018 but marked as Not Reportable for 2018.

There have been multiple additional updates to the ICD-O but no further clarification as to the reportability of this histology. ICD-O-3.2 currently lists serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant (C569) as 8460/2 with no mention of reportability and no information provided in Includes/Excludes.

SINQ 20220032 instructs capturing this histology as reportable when diagnosed 1/1/2021 or later and occurring in the testis. The answer indicates this is reportable due to the /2 behavior code in ICD-O-3.2, but it does not specify that it is limited to specific sites.

Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant reportable for ovary? If so, what dates apply? Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant of the testis diagnosed after 1/1/2021 reportable?

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?

The synoptic report calls this “Invasive adenocarcinoma with secondary Paget disease of anal mucosa and perianal skin.” The tumor size is listed as “2.1 x 1.7 x 0.7 cm, including associated advanced adenoma; size does not include the extent of the associated Paget disease, which extends for at least 2 cm distally.”  Clinically this is called an incidentally discovered Paget’s disease.

It is unclear if this is a collision tumor that should be abstracted as separate primaries, or if this is a single tumor with underlying Paget’s disease (similar to that described in Other Sites Rule H26). If this is a single rectal tumor, there does not appear to be an H rule for this scenario.