SEER Inquiry System - Search

Since the synoptic report and final diagnosis are equal in priority, and the Solid Tumor Rules tell us to code the more specific histology, would this be coded to signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, 8490/3, even though the pathologist used features in the final diagnosis? There is no histology adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell features on the CAP Protocol, so the pathologist may check off the next closest histology " signet ring cell carcinoma " which would not be truly representative of the actual histology. Final Diagnosis: Proximal colon, segmental resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, with signet ring cell features. Synoptic Report A: Colon and Rectum - Resection Specimen Procedure: Right hemicolectomy, Tumor Site: Right (ascending) colon, Histologic Type: Signet-ring cell carcinoma, Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated.

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.

Unless there is a biopsy that proves in situ tumor (EOD code 000, Tis) or extratesticular invasion into the scrotum, penis, or further contiguous extension (EOD code 700, T4), EOD Primary Tumor must be coded based on the PATHOLOGICAL assessment (orchiectomy). There are no other CLINICAL codes because the AJCC indicates imaging is not used for local T-categorization, and the EOD derives the AJCC TNM staging. If the case can not be coded to either EOD Primary Tumor codes 000 or 700 clinically, the only clinical code that seems to apply is 999 (Unknown).

We are seeing more cases treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to orchiectomy, especially in patients with distant metastatic disease. The EOD Manual indicates that clinical evidence takes priority over pathological evidencewhen neoadjuvant treatment is given, unless the extent of disease following neoadjuvant treatment is greater than pre-treatment clinical findings. If the clinical and pathological information are the same, code the extension based on the clinical information.

Do these general rules also apply to testis even though we cannot code CLINICAL findings for these tumors? If so, will EOD Primary Tumor be coded to 999 (Unknown) for any testis primary that is not in situ or invasive into the scrotum, etc., that is treated with neoadjuvant therapy? Or should the post-neoadjuvant PATHOLOGICAL assessment be coded for these tumors because the CLINICAL assessment would otherwise be unknown?

How is the EOD Primary Tumor coded for the following two cases?

1. Left testicular mixed germ cell tumor, biopsy-proven metastasis to a supraclavicular lymph node. The left testis contained a small mass on scrotal ultrasound. The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the post-treatment orchiectomy proved no residual primary tumor (ypT0). Is EOD Primary Tumor 999 because it is clinically unknown (even though it was clinically limited) or 800 (No evidence of primary tumor) because there was no pathological evidence of tumor following neoadjuvant treatment?

2. Right testicular mixed germ cell tumor with biopsy-proven inguinal lymph node metastasis. There was a palpable mass in right testis on physical exam (not described as fixed or involving scrotum). The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the post-treatment orchiectomy proved a residual 2 cm tumor limited to the testis without lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Is EOD Primary Tumor 999 because it is clinicallyunknown or 200 (PATHOLOGICAL assessment only - Limited to testis WITHOUT LVI)?

Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC).

Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction.

If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11.

Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.

MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.

The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

SEER*RSA states EOD Primary Tumor should be coded to 800 for an incidental finding of prostate cancer on prostatectomy for other reasons.

The SEER Manual states to assign code 000 for Tumor Size--Clinical when EOD Primary Tumor is coded to 800; however, the definition for Tumor Size--Clinical indicates clinical classification is composed only of diagnostic workup prior to treatment.

If there is no clinical workup for an incidental finding of prostate cancer, code 000 does not seem appropriate (does not meet criteria for clinical classification). Code 999 seems more appropriate for incidental findings during surgery for other reasons. The SEER Manual does not provide this exception in the current instruction.