SEER Inquiry System - Search

For example, total thyroidectomy specimen shows right lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma, 4.2 cm, unencapsulated, with numerous psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion; left lobe with papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.6 cm, encapsulated, with capsular invasion, with intralymphatic psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion. The synoptic summary documents vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only).

In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach?

The SEER Manual states to assign Tumor Size--Pathological code 000 when EOD Primary Tumor is coded to 800 (No evidence of primary tumor) for any schema. However, the definition of Tumor Size--Pathologic states that it records the size of a solid primary tumor that has been resected.

If the primary site has not been resected (does not meet the pathologic staging criteria), then it seems that Tumor Size Pathologic should be 999 when EOD Primary Tumor is coded as 800.

Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features in February 2021, left breast biopsies at 2:00 (3 cm from nipple) and 3:00 (8 cm from nipple) positions. Intraductal component was absent in those specimens.

Subsequent left breast total mastectomy in March 2021, provided a final diagnosis of multifocal mixed mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, 27 and 8 mm and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), low to intermediate grade, with focal mucinous features. The Staging Summary lists Histologic Type as mixed mucinous carcinomafor both foci of invasive carcinoma. DCIS is also noted as present negative for extensive intraductal component.

There does not appear to be a clear instruction or code for this histology. As a central registry, we are unable to follow-up with the pathologist regarding this diagnosis.

Just to be clear, there are 2 foci of invasive mixed mucinous carcinoma in this case measuring 27 mm and 8 mm. The DCIS component measured 56 mm.

Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample.

SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation?

Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database.

We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051.  The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET).  Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET).  In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list.  Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else?  Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS.  For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?