SEER Inquiry System - Search

This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?

We are starting to see more specific histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation. How are we to deal with these histologies and will this be addressed in the revised MP/H rules?

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: "Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades." They also state "In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text.

Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090.  On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through.

SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions?

It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual.

Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000.