SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Pelvic ultrasound-19 mm thickened endometrium; bilateral ovaries unremarkable. Case was coded to 19 mm for clinical tumor size. I have always been taught NOT to use "endometrial stripe" or "thickening" measurements for clinical size. Can you confirm. Also, is this noted on any of the SEER resources such as SEER training or in the SEER tumor size guidelines? I wanted to point them out to a reference if it is available.

Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease?

A patient had posterior cervical lymphadenopathy status post biopsy and subsequent lymph node dissection showed metastatic melanoma in 2018. Workup showed no skin lesions or primary site. Final diagnosis is melanoma of unknown primary (unknown if cutaneous or non-cutaneous). Should C760 be used as the primary site for this case since the histology codes of 8700-8790 are included in the Cervical Lymph Nodes and Unknown Primary Tumors of the Head and Neck schema in SEER*RSA?

It is unclear if code 300 is appropriate, since technically the fissure is comprised of pleura, involvement of the fissure appears to imply a tumor that is no longer localized.

An argument could be made for code 400, since the term traverses could be interpreted as crossing into adjacent lobe, however the lower lobe is not mentioned in this scan.

According to the literature, PMH is a low-grade malignant vascular neoplasm of different tissue planes including skin and soft tissue. However, the references also state: PMH is a cutaneous tumor that behaves in an indolent fashion. There is no indication that this was a malignant diagnosis.

12/3/18 Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Superficial squamous epithelium demonstrating hyperkeratosis and fragments of keratin debris, no tumor seen.

Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

NOTE: The submitted immunohistochemical slides were reviewed. Positive and negative controls reacted appropriately. The tumor cells demonstrate immunoreactivity to CK AE1/AE3 and CK7. The CD31 immunoreactivity described in the report cannot be confirmed as only the positive control is submitted for review. The tumor cells are negative for desmin, CD45, CD68, S-100, CD34, SMA, CD20, and HHV8. The proliferative index via Ki-67 is approximately 10%. The morphology (described below) and immunohistochemistry performed are compatible with a pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

12/4/18 Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Foot, left bone lesion, biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.

Note: The patient's imaging findings were reviewed in conjunction with this case, revealing numerous lytic lesions of the tibia, fibula, talus, tarsal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones. Additionally, as per the medical record, also reviewed in conjunction with this case, there are lesions of the skin. Thus, an extensive immunohistochemical panel was performed in an attempt to support the morphologic findings in this case, which were morphologically similar to the patient's skin biopsy. The tumor cells demonstrate strong immunoreactivity to pancytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3) and vimentin with moderate immunoreactivity to Fli-1. The tumor cells demonstrate weak immunoreactivity to epithelial membrane antigen. INI-1 is retained. There is focal immunoreactivity to CD31 although this is limited to the edges of the tissue fragments. The tumor cells are negative for HHV-8, CD34, smooth muscle actin, CK8/18, desmin, CD99, and Bcl-2. The combination of morphologic (see below for microscopic description) and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma. Fresh tissue was submitted for karyotype analysis at the time of intraoperative consultation; however, it revealed only a normal appearing male karyotype. Thus, molecular confirmation was sought. The original slides and a paraffin block were submitted for FOSB rearrangement analysis, as pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is known to have recurrent rearrangements with FOSB. Additional immunohistochemistry performed at (FACILITY) demonstrating immunoreactivity for ERG, supporting a vascular origin for this neoplasm. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated that 13% of the cells examined show FOSB rearrangement. While this FISH probe is for investigational purposes, the above findings support the diagnosis of pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.

The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.

Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.

Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?

Example: MRI found an intradural, extra-axial mass at T12/L1 with possible intramedullary component. Resection of the intradural intramedullary and extramedullary spinal cord tumor found a capillary hemangioma pathologically. The microscopic description on the path report describes a tumor with extensive vascularity involving the dura.

Should we equate the statement of capillary to mean the tumor is arising in a blood vessel as we do for venous hemangioma (non-reportable per SINQ 20130001)? Or should it be reportable as C700, 9131/0 because it is described as involving the dura (intradural, intramedullary and extramedullary)?

The 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update includes papillary microcarcinoma (8341/3) as the preferred term for thyroid primaries (C739). However, there are multiple SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8341/3 for diagnoses of micropapillary carcinoma of the thyroid (including SINQ 20071076, 20081127, 20110027, 20150023, and 20180008).

SINQ 20150023 specifically indicates: Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1 cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma and codes histology to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct.

Does this clarification apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later? If WHO feels the term micropapillary still does not refer to a specific histologic type for the thyroid, why is 8341/3 listed as a preferred term for this morphology/site combination? For cases 2021 and later, should a diagnosis of Incidental papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (3 mm) in left lower pole, be coded as 8341/3 per the ICD-O-3.2, or as 8260/3 per clarification in multiple SINQ entries?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

There are four invasive tumors in the right lung:

Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma in the right lower lobe (8012/3, C343);

Adenocarcinoma, acinar-predominant in the right lower lobe (8551/3, C343) that was 0.7 cm in size and limited to the lung;

Mucinous adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe (8253/3, C341) that was 0.9 cm and limited to the lung;

Adenocarcinoma, NOS also in the right upper lobe (8140/3, C341) that was 1 cm and limited to the lung.

The Lung M Rules confirm the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma is a separate primary from the three adenocarcinoma tumors (Rule M8). The acinar adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma tumors are separate primaries (Rule M6). The adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor is the same primary as both the acinar and mucinous are adenocarcinomas (Rule M7).

How is Primary Site coded for both the acinar and mucinous adenocarcinomas if they represent multiple tumors reported as a single primary (when compared to the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor)?

Should the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor also be included when coding EOD Primary Tumor for both the right lower lobe acinar adenocarcinoma and right upper lobe mucinous adenocarcinoma primaries? Further follow-up with the physician is not possible.