SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.

The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, "Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue." This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?

Procedure stated = Bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies, left axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy. On the pathology report it indicates two additional lymph nodes were removed that were not SLN. The axillary aspect measures 2 x 2 x 1 cm. Two lymph nodes are identified ranging from 0.5 up to 1 cm. The lymph nodes are bisected and entirely submitted. Final Diagnosis Left breast, mastectomy including nipple: no residual carcinoma; FINAL DIAGNOSIS for LN = Lymph nodes, left axillary sentinel #1; excision: Two lymph nodes examined - negative for tumor (0/2); Two lymph nodes - negative for tumor (0/2)

SINQ 20081076 states carcinoid tumorlets of the lung are not reportable and are defined as being less than 5 mm in diameter and benign. Per the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumours, microcarcinoid tumors are precursor lesions/nodules measuring greater than 0.5 mm, but less than 5 mm (0.5 cm). Is the term microcarcinoid tumor equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet, and therefore not reportable? Or is a microcarcinoid tumor a reportable type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET)?

As of 2013, radiofrequency ablation is coded to "radiation therapy," chemoembolization is coded to "chemotherapy," and microwave ablation code to "other."  Or, is coding microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to surgical code "16"? The latest documentation year that I could find in the SEER website regarding the above was 2013. I would appreciate clarification/confirmation of correct coding especially for microwave ablation.

The pathologist completed a CAP protocol using soft tissue. Pathology revealed a 2.5 cm tumor with invasion of skeletal muscle with deep margins positive for tumor.

The patient had a lower lobectomy with final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma with the following features: Tumor Focality: Multiple separate tumor nodules in same lobe; Tumor Size: 2.6 cm, 0.7 cm, 0.3 cm and 0.1 cm in greatest dimension; Histologic Type: Adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; Histologic Grade: Moderately differentiated.

It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable.

Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.

This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?