SEER Inquiry System - Search

Is an M rule needed to address multiple tumors and Note 2 in Table 3? Does Note 2 in Table 3 apply when multiple tumors exist and one tumor contains only ductal carcinoma?

The M Rules currently confirm that a metaplastic carcinoma (whether it is involved with ductal or lobular) and a separate ductal carcinoma are separate primaries because these histologies are on different rows in Table 3 (separate primaries per M14). There is no specific rule regarding metaplastic carcinomas in the Multiple Tumors (M Rules) module, so presumably, the presence of a separate ductal carcinoma is not lumped into Note 2 in Table 3 for metaplastic carcinoma.

However, the note is confusing when there are multiple tumors involved because it appears to the registrars there are two options for coding the histology. To some registrars, the rules indicate it does not matter if the tumor is predominantly ductal carcinoma as long as some percentage of metaplastic carcinoma is present, code histology to metaplastic carcinoma. For other registrars, the presence of solely a ductal carcinoma in a second tumor is a separate primary from the separate metaplastic carcinoma.

The M rules and Note 2 need to clarify this issue to promote consistency.

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

Recognizing the addition of the behavior requirement into this rule is an attempt to stop non-synchronous ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinomas from being accessioned as a single primary (SINQ 20200022), the issue with using behavior rather than timing is that now, synchronous separate/non-contiguous tumors that are invasive carcinoma NST (8500/3) and lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) (or vice versa) are separate primaries per M14.

Lobular and carcinoma, NST are separate rows in Table 3, so we cannot stop at M10 and code the mixed histology because there are two separate histologies with different behaviors. There is no rule that states we can just ignore the in situ tumors for the purpose of applying the M Rules. (We are instructed to ignore the in situ when coding histology only in certain circumstances.) The problem with Rule M10 appears to be related to timing.

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

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: Patient is found to have a 9.4 cm GIST in the jejunum and 2 cm GIST in the stomach during resection, neither stated to be outright malignant. Similar to the instruction in SINQ 20190041, this case is coded as a malignant jejunal primary due to multifocal tumor. However, it is unclear how to account for the stomach tumor, or any other multifocal tumor for GIST, when coding EOD and Summary Stage.

Lung Rule M14 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract a single primary. However, we were hoping for confirmation that a cancer (NOS) or malignancy (NOS) would not be a distinctly different histology that may qualify for Lung Rule M8. Currently, these histologic terms are not included in the Table 3 options or mentioned in the preceding notes.

Table 4 (Changes in reportable terminology), 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update, does confirm that the term malignant no longer needs to be used to describe a paraganglioma, but Table 4 includes the histology for extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) as the new preferred term for paraganglioma. Paraganglioma, NOS is histology code 8680/3. Which code is correct?

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

SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?

SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?

Penile mass excision shows final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type. Subsequent partial penectomy has a final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type and the summary cancer data lists

Both the final diagnosis and summary cancer data indicate a histology code of 8051/3 (squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type / verrucous carcinoma). However, this site and histology combination triggers edit IFN4911. Edit documentation indicates that for sites C600-C609 (all penile sites) use histology code 8051 and do not use 8054.

Review of the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table does not indicate these terms are synonymous.

Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not.

In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)?