SEER Inquiry System - Search

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)?

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 Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB) definition for systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematological neoplasm (SM-AHN, 9741/3) states SM-AHN is a variant of systemic mastocytosis that arises with a myeloid disease of non-mast cell lineage (e.g., MDS, MPN, etc.) and that,

However, SINQ 20130172 conflicts with the Heme DB stating the systemic mastocytosis and the associated hematological neoplasm are a single primary coded to a single histology (9741/3) per Rule M2.

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.

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.

Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage.  EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage.

Patient was initially diagnosed in 2017 with LR-5 lesions in segments 3 and 7 of liver and treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Routine scans in 2019 show no evidence of residual or recurrent disease.

Surveillance imaging in 2020 identifies LR-TR viable segment 3 treatment zone with slowly growing arterially-enhancing nodule as well as increasing arterial enhancement in the neighboring parenchyma. No new LR-4 or LR-5 observations. Patient is not a surgical candidate but is treated with Y-90 radiotherapy.

Per Rule M10, tumors diagnosed more than 1 year apart are multiple primaries. However, there is no clear clinical statement of malignancy in this case.

1. 12/11/2020 Peripheral blood revealing what was thought to be chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL1 positive (9875/3). Patient was started on Hydrea while waiting for further tests on 12/12/2020.

2. 12/14/2020 Lymph node biopsy showed granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), but flow cytometry states it is similar to that seen in the patient's peripheral blood and is consistent with nodal involvement by myeloblasts.

3. 12/15/2020 Bone marrow biopsy reads acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3), likely arising from BCR/ABL1 positive chronic myeloid leukemia. There is a note on this pathology from medical oncologist that says: This will dramatically change the course of his treatment, likely with a TKI.

4. 12/17/2020 Sprycel started. Patient was weaned off Hydrea.

According to Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. It lists 9930/3 when simultaneously (or after) with 9861/3. Technically, it was two days before, but I feel like I should and could count that as simultaneously because of Note 1 that says: These sarcomas are solid manifestations of the associated leukemia. For example, when acute myeloid leukemia and myeloid sarcoma are diagnosed simultaneously, the myeloid sarcoma is the result of myeloid cells migrating from the bone marrow or blood into tissue. It is part of the disease process for the acute leukemia. Also, the providers never mention granulocytic sarcoma

Based on that, I think that #2 & #3 above are the same primary, which would be acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3).

Per the hematopoietic database, 9875/3 transforms to 9861/3. Therefore, Rule M8 is confusing with the "only one" biopsy. Does this rule apply because the 9875/3 was from peripheral blood only? But peripheral blood is coded in Diagnostic Confirmation as histology.

Rule M9 reads: The two diagnoses are likely the result of an ongoing diagnostic work-up. The later diagnosis is usually based on all of the test results and correlated with any clinical information. Because that is truly what I think is happening here though that rule states there is no available documentation. If you do not have any documentation, how would you know you are dealing with a chronic and an acute diagnosis?

M10 does not apply.

According to Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days and there is documentation of two biopsies. The chronic myelogenous leukemia only had peripheral blood and not a bone marrow, lymph node or tissue, but that is counted as positive histology in diagnostic confirmation, but I don't know if that is kept as a separate field/thought. I would not code a peripheral blood smear as with a surgical code or a surgical diagnostic and staging procedure code, so maybe that is what I should be thinking about and therefore would probably say Rule M8 and one primary.

Patient has left salpingo-oophorectomy showing fallopian tube with focal high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm.

In reviewing some journal articles, the term STIN is being used to describe both STIC and serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (STIL). We will likely continue to see this term used, so it would be nice to have some clarity.

Ampulla, biopsy: High grade dysplasia with focal intramucosal carcinoma in a background of ulceration with acute and chronic inflammation.

Surgery pathology: Head of pancreas, duodenum, and distal stomach, pancreaticoduodenectomy-Ampulla, Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Grade moderately differentiated, 1.5cm. Tumor invades into duodenal submucosa. Lymphovascular Invasion: Foci suspicious for lymphovascular invasion identified. Perineural Invasion: Present.

Synoptic report: Tumor Site Intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Histologic Type Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type.

There is not enough information regarding site in radiology reports or operative report. CT-A/P/C:The patient's known ampullary mass is not well visualized on this exam. No significant intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary ductal dilation is identified. The pancreatic duct is normal caliber.