SEER Inquiry System - Search

The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document.

In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority.

Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not?

Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis.

Patient had a breast excision that proved a single tumor with no evidence of invasive carcinoma. The final diagnosis stated: Size (extent) of EPC DCIS: Spanning approximately 1.3 cm. The pathologist did not describe separate foci of DCIS; only one tumor comprised of both encapsulated papillary carcinoma and DCIS. The encapsulated papillary carcinoma was not described as invasive. The pathology noted: This case is best classified as EPC conventional DCIS. No conventional stromal invasion is identified. Solid Tumor Rule M2 confirms a single tumor is a single primary.

However, there does not appear to be an H Rule that instructs how to code histology. The Single Tumor: In Situ Only module, has only three H Rules and none of them apply to this case. The patient does not have Paget disease (H1), does not have a single histology (H2, there are multiple histologies present as DCIS and EPC are listed on different rows in Table 3) and does not have DCIS and LCIS (H3). How does one arrive at the correct histology for this case?

Mixed odontogenic tumor consistent with dentinoameloblastoma, 9.5 cm, See Note: Tumor involves maxillary bone including hard palate, alveolar ridges, nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses bilaterally and buccal soft tissue. Lymphovascular invasion not identified. Perineural invasion not identified. Margins: Tumor involves right posterior bone (alveolar) margin. All other margins negative. Note: This is a rare hybrid tumor showing features of ameloblastoma producing pre-dentin/osteodentin matrix. Submucosal tumor is seen in the nasal cavities and palate. A congo red stain shows that the acellular dentin-like matrix fluoresces similar to collagen after polarization. Immunohistochemistry shows that the tumor cells are diffusely and strongly positive for p63, focally positive for CK19, and negative for CK5/6, SOX10, S100 and calretinin.

The Solid Tumor Rules indicate bladder tumors that are urothelial carcinoma (8120) and small cell carcinoma (8041) are separate primaries per Rule M13 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 2). These are distinctly different histologies and, presumably, one would want to capture the small cell carcinoma (or small cell carcinoma component) as this has a worse prognosis.

However, if a subsequent bladder tumor is composed of invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, the histology is coded as 8045/3 per Rule H4, but this is not abstracted as a multiple primary. The only M Rule that applies is Rule M18 (Abstract a single primary when tumors do not meet any of the above criteria). The mixed histology code 8045 is not included in Table 2, so none of the histology-based M Rules apply. Is the subsequent mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma tumor (8045/3) the same primary as a previously diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) when these tumors are diagnosed within three years?

Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.

Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.

Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.

It appears an argument could be made for both NLPHL (9659/3) and THRLBCL (9688/3). We favor coding NLPHL (9659/3) because the pathologist did specifically call this a Hodgkin lymphoma, and also specified that it only has a T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like pattern.

This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor.