SEER Inquiry System - Search

The Solid Tumor Rules state that for cases diagnosed in 2022 and forward, p16 testing CAN be used to assign histology code 8085 (squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive). The rules also state that for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022, code 8085 MUST be based on ISH testing and not p16. ISH testing is not specifically addressed for 2022+ cases, but are we correct in assuming it can still be used as the basis for 8085?

Multiple CAnswer Forum posts and the AJCC 8th edition Head and Neck staging webinar indicate that the correct chapter/registry staging schema in this situation is determined ONLY by p16 results - not ISH testing, and therefore the Schema Discriminator 2 SSDI should be coded as 1 – p16 negative, regardless of ISH results.

While we understand that histology codes should not be changed based on staging criteria, there is a SEER/NAACCR edit, “Schema Discriminator 2, Head and Neck, Histology (NAACCR)” tag number N6802, that will not allow coding 8085 if Schema Discriminator 2 is coded as 1 (p16 negative). The edit does seem to be correctly enforcing the AJCC guidelines for choosing the staging schema, based on the sources noted above. Do the Solid Tumor or Site-Specific Data Items (SSDI) guidelines need to be modified for this situation?

The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel) concurrent with radiation per the managing physician. The physician stated the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy; however, it was also noted that patient completed five cycles of chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia.

The SEER Manual does not address how to code Neoadjuvant Therapy when the patient completed almost all the planned neoadjuvant therapy. It seems inappropriate to code Neoadjuvant Therapy as 2 (Started but not completed) simply because the patient did not have one cycle of chemotherapy but is otherwise felt to have completed neoadjuvant therapy per the managing physician. Does the managing physician’s statement of “completion” impact how this scenario is coded?

Please comment on these specific scenarios.

1. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, but the urologist is not considering this malignant, nor is the urologist treating for malignancy, but there is no clear statement from the physician that this is not reportable.  Should this case be abstracted?
2. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, and there is a statement by the physician that this is not yet malignant. Should this case be abstracted?
3. Prostate MRI with PIRADS 4 or 5; however, the treating urologist does not call this malignant and is not treating patient for prostate cancer.  [Example: 2024 Prostate MRI - PI-RADS 4. Follow up with Urologist states patient to repeat Prostate MRI in 1 year and continue with yearly PSA levels and there is no mention of prostate cancer other than the PI-RADS score]. Should this case be abstracted?

The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3).

However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module.

We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module?

2012 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Right

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

2024 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Primary Site – Ovary, Left

Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant

We would like to confirm that the correct histology code is 9431/1 per ICD-O-3.2, as the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Manual lists the histology code as both 9431/1 (pages 301 and 303 of the combined manual), but also shows it as a synonym for 9421/1 – Diffuse astrocytoma, MYB- or MYBL1 altered (page 304).

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.

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.

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)”?