SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

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.

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.

Per SEER 20140003, an omentectomy is not recorded under Surgery of Other Site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. Is this still correct? CoC appears to have different guidelines stating in a forum that an omentectomy is coded in data item Surgical Procedure to Other Site. I would like to confirm SEER guidelines. Is this one of those unique situations that SEER and STORE differ? Our state follows SEER guidelines and would like to communicate the appropriate rules to our facilities.

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?

Is this histologic terminology synonymous with 8071/2 Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia?

Per the 7/20/2018 updates to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology list, the reportability flag was changed from N to Y for Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as well as Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia, both 8071/2. It appears that both SINQ 20180020 and the second half of SINQ 20160069 are no longer valid and should be deleted.

Should the updated Note 5 from the Non-malignant CNS regarding optic nerve glioma also be incorporated into Note 6 for Malignant CNS rules (the pilocytic astrocytoma note)?

This was one of the major issues identified in the SEER*Educate Workshop. Registrars have demonstrated they do not consistently think to look at the Non-malignant CNS schema when they see the term glioma and continue to misclassify optic nerve gliomas as malignant.

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

Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date.

For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed?

Patient has a resection labeled as: Spine, designated intramedullary lesion. The Final Diagnosis is: Melanocytic neoplasm with features most consistent with primary intramedullary melanocytoma. The Diagnosis Comment states: The overall immunophenotypic and morphologic impression is a primary central nervous system melanocytoma.

The ICD-O-3 lists melanocytoma, NOS histology code as 8726/0, but does not provide a site-associated code. If the ICD-O-3 is used, the histology would be 8726/0 and the primary site presumably would be C720 since the tumor was specifically described as being intramedullary (i.e., within the spinal cord medulla).

Table 6 (Solid Tumor Rules, Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) does not list either an intramedullary melanocytoma or melanocytoma (NOS). However, Table 6 does include meningeal melanocytosis 8728/0 and meningeal melanocytoma 8728/1. If Table 6 is used and the histology is coded 8728/1, then the primary site would presumably be C701 per the ICD-O-3 site-associated listing for this histology (C709).

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.