SEER Inquiry System - Search

Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?

The patient is a 34 year old who presented with testicular pain radiating into the abdomen approximately 1 month before orchiectomy in 2018. CT abdomen/pelvis: Multiple focal sclerotic bone lesions. Given the lack of change from July 2014, these are likely benign bone islands. No adenopathy mentioned. He has no prior history of germ cell tumor nor any surgery for any tumor/cancer before this. Pathology: Testis, left, radical orchiectomy: - Demarcated scar tissue (1.3 cm), with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor. No evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). - Margins are unremarkable.

Patient is diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), right breast, receives HT, radiation therapy, and surgery. The same patient is diagnosed with LCIS, left breast one month later--recommend surveillance only (no surgery). Is the HT for the left breast coded at all? I think for COC/NCCN, we do not, but for SEER what would I do? Treatment in the SEER Manual 2018 states, "Code the treatment on each abstract when a patient has multiple primaries and the treatment given for one primary also affects/treats another primary." The example include bladder/prostate and ovarian/cervix. It also states, "Code the treatments only for the site that is affected when a patient has multiple primaries and the treatment affects only one of the primaries." The example includes colon/tonsil. Breast LCIS treatment appears complicated. Per NCCN guidelines, this condition no longer has recommendations, however it appears as though they still state that if a core biopsy is done and is LCIS, follow up should be ultrasound or surgical excision. Nowhere does it state hormone is recommended.

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

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.

Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.

Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)

There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.

Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?

For example, 9/12/18 left lung upper lobe lobectomy: 1.5 cm, 0.8 cm invasive component, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma with acinar and lepidic patterns, G2, no visceral pleural invasion, no LVI, 0/14 LNS positive. An additional minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, 1 mm, was seen away from the main tumor. The correct coding of the minimally invasive adenocarcinoma will ultimately determine if we have one tumor (using rule M7) versus two primaries (using rule M6).

The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable?

There is no statement of mucinous or non-mucinous in this case, only adenocarcinoma in situ and an obsolete term bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) which used to be code 8250. However 8250 is now lepidic adenocarcinoma, and does not match this diagnosis.

Although the Histology Rules do include a general note indicating that the preferred term for BAC is now mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253, it is not listed as a synonym in Table 3. As a result it is unclear how to apply this statement in accordance with the H rules.

The ICD-O Histology Updates table also includes Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous which seems to suggest that in order to apply histology code 8252 (non-mucinous) or 8253 (mucinous) one must also have a statement of mucinous or non-mucinous.