SEER Inquiry System - Search

Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?

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.

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?

Final Pathologic Diagnosis:

Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment)

Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM.

Margins: Negative.

Comment

Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised.

12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon:

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion.

PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management.

Scenario: Patient had a transurethral resection of the prostate on 8-29-19, positive for basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation involving approximately 50% of tissue (determined not to be mets by consult). On 11-14-19, the patient had a prostatectomy positive for residual basal cell carcinoma and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma. According to AJCC, 8th edition, page 724, basal cell carcinoma of the prostate is 8147/3 and we ignored the small focus of adenocarcinoma. The above scenario was reported as two primaries (8090/3 and 8140/3), but we are thinking it is one.

Details

4/15/2018:  Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma.  Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome.

1/21/2019:  Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas

8/7/2019:  Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report

9/30/2020:  Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas.  

10/14/2020:  Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note:  History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection.

10/18/2021:  Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma

Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules

#1:       4/15/2018:  C445-1

#2:       1/21/2019:  C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18

#3:       8/7/2019:  C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8

#4:       8/7/2019:  C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12

#5:       8/7/2019:  C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11

#6:       9/30/2020:  C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10

#7:       9/30/2020:  C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18.

#8:       10/18/2021:  C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10

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.

A physician stated the patient likely had secondary polycythemia vera due to cardiac and pulmonary conditions but that a polycythemia vera could not be ruled out. A JAK2 was ordered that was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. The patient was treated with hydrea.

According to SEER SINQ 20120049, secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. However, in this case, the patient was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. Therefore, is this reportable? We looked for guidance in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and found it confusing that secondary polycythemia vera was not mentioned or discussed under polycythemia vera in the database. The only thing we could find was secondary polycythemia NOS that was discussed under polycythemia.