SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?

The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.

However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.

Following the existing Solid Tumor Rules Histology Rules, it would seem this is a single primary with histology 8045 (Combined small cell carcinoma) because there is no indication there are multiple prostate tumors and Table 2 states combined adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma is Combined small cell carcinoma (8045).

Conversely, while not an exact match to this case, SINQ 20190083 implies small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries. In that SINQ case, the patient was simultaneously diagnosed with metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate on a liver biopsy and prostate adenocarcinoma on a prostate biopsy. There is no indication that patient had separate tumors in the prostate, however the SINQ instructs to code as separate primaries.

Would the previous SINQ logic apply to synchronous diagnoses in the prostate as well? Or does code 8045 apply to this situation?

Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?

Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?

Patient had a radical pharyngectomy showing a glossotonsillar sulcus tumor with high grade squamous cell carcinoma and adjacent high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma. The pathologist commented, the tumor is composed of high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma and high grade conventional-type squamous cell carcinoma that are immediately adjacent to one another. Given that the tumors are arising so close together and could represent a single neoplastic process with divergent morphologies, they are staged together.

Employing Solid Tumor Manual Rule M1 (single primary if unable to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors), it was determined that this should be reported as a single tumor because the pathologist referred to the case as both a tumor singular and tumors pleural. However, the Solid Tumor Manual Histology Rules for a Single Tumor do not appear to have an instruction for coding this histology combination.

This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice.

In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).

We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).

An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.

Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation).

For example, chemotherapy and immunotherapy administered first, followed by surgery, then immunotherapy and hormone therapy after surgery. Or is code 4 used for two administrations of chemotherapy before surgery and two more courses after surgery?

The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.

The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?