SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents.

Example: Patient has a 04/2023 diagnosis of symptomatic anemia not responsive to Retacrit. Further testing includes diagnostic bone marrow biopsy 10/2023 proving MDS with low blasts and SF3B1 mutation, treated with Relozyl (Luspatercept).

There is no SEER*Rx listing for Reblozyl or Luspatercept. Per web search, Luspatercept, sold under the brand name Reblozyl, is a medication used for the treatment of anemia in beta thalassemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

Is this non-cancer directed treatment since it is given to address the anemia rather than the MDS? If cancer-directed treatment, how should it be coded?

The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003.

However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not.

Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003?

Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification.

Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea.

11-17-2022 Blood smear: CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3 (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations).

The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing: A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary.

Rule M15

Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions.

Note: The same row means the tumors are

• The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR

• One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR

• A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR

• A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant

Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3.

It appears there was some confusion about finding this new malignant HGAP tumor (2023+) code. If this is not a specific subtype/variant of astrocytoma, can clarification be added to the “New for 2023” entry for HGAP?

Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Rule M5 instructs us to abstract a single primary (as malignant) when a single tumor is originally diagnosed as non-malignant, the “First course treatment was active surveillance (no tumor resection),” and the subsequent resection pathology is malignant.

This patient’s first course of treatment was not active surveillance. While the patient did not have first course tumor resection, the tumor was treated with Cabergoline.

Should Rule M5 apply because there was no tumor resection? If so, should Rule M5 clearly state no tumor resection is the criteria (not active surveillance)?

SINQ 20230023 does indicate a PitNET diagnosis following a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma does not fall into standard rules, but in the previous SINQ the first course treatment was a partial resection.

It is unclear whether other types of treatment could result in a new malignant PitNET, following a previously treated non-malignant pituitary tumor.

Patient was diagnosed in July 2022 with biopsy confirmed left kidney renal cell carcinoma. Initially, partial nephrectomy was planned for February 2023 but canceled at the last moment due to the patient’s “history of narcotic use.” The details of that cancellation were otherwise unclear. It appears the treatment plan was changed due to patient non-compliance.

Patient then had cryoablation of the tumor in May of 2023. Subsequent imaging in October found residual tumor, but no disease progression was noted. Again, additional ablation was offered but patient decided on surgical treatment which did not occur until December 2023.

Is the cryoablation second course due to a change of plan if there is no disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure?

If the cryoablation is first course treatment, then would the partial resection also be first course treatment because it was documented as the treatment plan?