SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules (STR) lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma as histology code 8312, but in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table it is listed as histology code 8311.

No changes were made in the Kidney STR. As a result, the histology change described in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table conflicts with Table 1. Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD) is listed in Table 1 as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312). However, the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists this as a related term for histology code 8311/3. This related term was not discussed in the Implementation Guidelines, and no change was noted in the STR.

While it seems we should continue to follow the STR, without clarification as to why this histology change was not implemented in STR, achieving consistency will be problematic if registrars jump straight to the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table to code histology for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. If this code cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that clarification be included in the STR?

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

First, reportability of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma changed from 8323/3 to 8323/1. Although it does not appear the standard-setters implemented this change, note of the conflict between the ICD-O-3.2 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STR) is not included in the Implementation Guidelines or STR. The current Note for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) was left in Table 1, so this presumably is still reportable. It would be helpful if the conflict with ICD-O-3.2 was addressed, especially since the existing Note refers to changes made back in 2016 (not 2018 or 2021).

Second, is the term sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma still coded as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma (8312) because sarcomatoid is referring to a pattern of differentiation or 8318 (renal cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid)? The STR, Table 1, lists sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma as 8312, but the ICD-O-3.2 lists this as 8318. The Note in Table 1 still indicates WHO/IARC and College of American Pathologists agree that sarcomatoid carcinoma is a pattern of differentiation, not a specific subtype, of renal cell carcinoma. This appears to conflict with WHO/IARC ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as it provides a different, specific histology code for this malignancy. How can WHO/IARC classify this both a pattern of renal cell carcinoma and a separate, specific histology?

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

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes Mullerian mixed tumor as the preferred term for histology code 8950 (previously malignant mixed Mullerian tumor/MMMT). This table also includes carcinosarcoma, NOS as the preferred term for histology code 8980. Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table nor the Implementation Guidelines address the long-standing issue of coding histology for diagnoses of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor.

These endometrial primaries are frequently diagnosed as both carcinosarcoma and MMMT. The questions regarding histology coding for carcinosarcoma and carcinosarcoma/MMMT of the endometrium date back to before the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, with at least three SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8950/3 (MMMT) for diagnoses of MMMT. SINQ has instructed registrars that MMMT is a synonym for carcinosarcoma and these tumors should be coded to 8980 (carcinosarcoma), not to 8950 (MMMT). The most recent SINQ is partly inconsistent with the others, indicating 8950 can be used if the tumor is only described as MMMT. The other SINQ entries state carcinosarcoma should be used as it is the preferred term for MMMT. (See SINQ 20061008, 20100009, 20180071.)

The most recent SINQ (20180071) specifically indicates: According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition, MMMT (8950/3) is now a synonym for carcinosarcoma (8980/3) even though it has a separate ICD-O code. The ICD-O code for MMMT is no longer in the WHO book. However, MMMT is in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table and is not stated to be obsolete or a synonym. Which is correct, the clarification in the SINQ or the 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table?

For a 2021 diagnosis of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor, how should registrars code the histology? Follow the previous SINQ entries and Rule H17 to code the histology to 8980 when the diagnosis includes both carcinosarcoma and MMMT? Do these previous SINQ entries still apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later?

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

Left Eye Conjunctiva, biopsy (01/23/2018): Conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe. Is intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe the same as coding 8077/2?

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.

Example: Posterior fossa tumor resection final diagnosis was medulloblastoma, WHO Grade IV. The diagnosis comment notes the current tumor resection reveals large irregular reticulin-free nodules with streams of neoplastic cells in a fibrillary background in association with narrow reticulin-rich internodular strands of poorly differentiated neoplastic cells. Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity. The diagnosis comment provided only one histology.

Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Manual, Malignant CNS, Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology instructions, an addendum or comment has priority over the final diagnosis. Although indicative is not listed on any ambiguous terminology list, is this an ambiguous diagnosis that must be ignored? Or does the diagnosis comment in this case provide a single, specific diagnosis of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity?

Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.

There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.

How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.

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?