SEER Inquiry System - Search

This question involves positive cervical lymph nodes with an unknown primary site. The SEER Manual says under the coding instructions for Primary Site:

14. b.Use the NOS category for the organ system or the Ill-Defined Sites (C760-C768) if the physician advisor cannot identify a primary site.

Note: Assign C760 for Occult Head and Neck primaries with positive cervical lymph nodes.

Schema Discriminator 1: Occult Head and Neck Lymph Nodes is used to discriminate between these cases and other uses of C760. Does SEER agree with AJCC that cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are EBV+ should be coded to the nasopharynx and cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are p16+ should be coded to the oropharynx, if no primary site is identified?

The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?

Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy.

Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity):

Procedure type: Lumpectomy.

Specimen laterality: Right.

Tumor size: 7mm.

Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma.

Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9).

Tumor focality: Single focus.

Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.

Treatment effect: No known therapy.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present.

Architectural pattern: Cribriform.

Nuclear grade: Grade 1.

Necrosis: Not identified.

Calcifications: Not identified.

Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm.

Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed).

Distant metastasis: Not applicable.

Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).

Example: Bladder primary with transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) on 2/17/2017 (Date of First Surgical Proc) followed by a second TURBT on 3/24/2017 (Date Most Definitive Surgery) with mitomycin C instilled on the second, most definitive TURB procedure.

There is an edit failure (IFX166) when Systemic/Surgery Sequence is coded 5 (intra-operative systemic) and Systemic Date does not match Date of First Surgical Procedure. How should we capture the intra-operative systemic treatment during the second, most definitive TURB? Is the correct Surgery/Systemic Sequence code 3 (systemic after surgery) for this case because (intra-operative) chemo was technically given after the first surgery?

In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual.

Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype.

Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype?

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

The Extent of Disease (EOD) Manual states: Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension documented. If the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease, code the extension based on the post-neoadjuvant information.

1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins?

2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell?

3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now.