SEER Inquiry System - Search

Transurethral resection: Microscopic Diagnosis: Bladder, transurethral resection: Low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma Gross Description: Received in formalin labeled with the patient's name and bladder tumor is a 3.0 x 2.0 1.0 cm aggregate of friable tan tissue biopsies. The specimen is submitted in toto, cassettes

This is all the information there is on this path report. Extent of Disease (EOD) instructions state inferred description of noninvasive: No statement of invasion (microscopic description present) SEER 2018 Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines state code behavior 3 if the only surgery performed is a transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) documenting that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen OR the pathology report does not mention whether the submucosa is free of tumor or has been invaded by tumor.

While we recognize the Heme DB has been the correct source for histology coding for heme and lymphoid neoplasms dating back to 2010, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines appear to provide incorrect coding instructions. Histologies 9670/3, 9728/3, 9729/3 and 9836/3 are listed in Table 3 - Deleted ICD-O codes in ICD-O-3.2.

While we recognize these histologies have been included in this Table because they have now been deleted, it is unclear whether the Comments regarding their use listed in the 4th column of the Table is correct. For each of these histologies, the comment states the histology listed in the 1st column (ICD-O-3/3.1) should be used prior to 2021. For example, for histology 9670/3, the comment states: Cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2021 use code 9670/3. Cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward use code 9823/3. However, each of these histology codes have been obsolete for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. If registrars were following the Heme DB and Heme Manual instructions (the appropriate coding source for these neoplasms), these histologies would not have been used in a decade.

Should the Comments column in Table 3 be updated? Or should a Note follow the Table indicating registrars should not use these histology codes for cases diagnosed after 1/1/2010, and these histology codes have been deleted for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021? It seems misleading to indicate any of these are valid histology codes for a 2010-2020 diagnosis when the Heme DB confirms these histology codes only apply to cases diagnosed prior to 2010.

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.

Should histology be coded as paraganglioma, NOS (8680/3) or as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) for a diagnosis of paraganglioma in the bladder? Does the pathologist have to specifically diagnose the tumor as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS to use histology code 8693/3? Or, does any diagnosis of paraganglioma (NOS) arising outside of the adrenal gland, carotid body, middle ear, or aortic body (the specified sites for other types of paragangliomas) qualify as an extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS?

The ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines (Tables 6 and 7) provide an associated site of C755 for histology 8680/3 (paraganglioma, NOS), but no associated site code is provided for histology 8693/3 (extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS). If the preferred site for paraganglioma, NOS is the paraganglia, would a paraganglioma in the bladder be an extra-adrenal paraganglioma?

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

Examples:

1) New tumor at the ileocolic anastomosis, described as a, Circumferential centrally ulcerated mass with raised borders. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through muscularis propria into subserosal adipose tissue, no involvement of the serosal surface identified. The only mention of mucosa on the resection is the uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa in the otherwise uninvolved portions of the ileum/colon. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

2) Right colon with anastomosis site. Tumor site: Anastomosis. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through the muscularis propria. Gross description does not describe mucosa, only noting, at the central area of anastomosis is an ill-defined, slightly raised, tan-brown to purple mass measuring 2.2 x 2 cm, which is nearly circumferential, causing obstruction at the site of anastomosis. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

3) Polyp at ileocolonic anastomosis, polyp biopsy final diagnosis was, Invasive moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma in association with adenoma. No mention of mucosa on the biopsy final diagnosis or gross description. Clinical info indicates, There is an ulcerated 5 cm mass at the ileo-colonic anastomosis that was biopsied. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor as a related term for histology code 8317 (Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type). However, this related term is not discussed in the implementation guidelines as being a new term/reportable tumor. The Solid Tumor Rules do not indicate a hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is reportable; however, if a registrar only looked at the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, it may seem as though this histology should be collected.

The term hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor was not included in the Solid Tumor Rules as a subtype/variant of RCC, or as an equivalent term for chromophobe RCC. There is a SINQ (20180047) that states not to report renal hybrid oncocytic tumor, despite the fact these tumors exhibit mixed features of both oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. For cases diagnosed 2021 and later, should the clarification in the SINQ apply? Or should the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table be used which indicates this is a reportable diagnosis? If the standard setters decided not to implement use of hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor for 2021, can clarification be added to the Solid Tumor Rules or Implementation Guidelines?

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

Lip has not been added to any of the site-specific histology tables, nor has any other instruction been provided for coding tumors in this site.

Coding histology for lip primaries is difficult because registrars do not know where to look first. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate one should use the tables first, but then do not inform registrars what table to use for a lip primary (i.e., a specific table, any table, no table).

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

The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table.

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

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.