SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant.

We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case.

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.

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 was diagnosed on 01/2020, and primary site on the pathology report is Ampulla of Vater (C241). Synoptic Report states histology as: Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion.

I have reviewed the ICD-O-3 coding table and found histology Intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasm (C25_) code 8503/2. Based on the Matrix principle (Rule F on the ICD-O-3), I will change the behavior to 3 and code as 8503/3. If I look in ICDO-3, Tubulopapillary adenocarcinoma is coded 8263/3.

While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755.

Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755.

Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities.

There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment.

While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case.

Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE.

LI-RADS (liver), PI-RADS (prostate), and TI-RADS (thyroid) can be used to determine reportability. BI-RADS (breast) and Lung-RADS cannot be used to determine reportability. Can these systems below to determine reportability?

C-RADS (from CT colonography)

NI-RADS (head & neck)

O-RADS (ovarian-adnexal)

A common scenario is a patient has a positive CT of the abdomen/pelvis for liver mass only. Biopsy of the liver mass is positive for cholangiocarcinoma. The physician is also calling the liver tumor the primary site with histology of cholangiocarcinoma. There is no evidence of intrahepatic bile duct (C221) or gallbladder (C240) involvement which are sites specific to this histology. The hematology/oncology consult stages this as Stage IIIA, T3N0M0 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.  Can we code cholangiocarcinoma with site code C220 (liver) or should we assume that C221 (intrahepatic bile ducts) would be a better code to reflect this histology?  

Is a physician’s statement of progressive disease adequate to determine disease progression in coding first vs. second course treatment? Can an increase in tumor burden (i.e., a change in overall stage) be used by the registrar to determine disease progression?

Often, determining disease progression is difficult as there are no guidelines in the SEER Manual related to this topic. It seems a physician’s statement of progressive disease should always be accepted. However, that statement is not always available. While it seems an increase in tumor size alone would not be “progressive disease” as tumors will continue to grow, can registrars use an increase in tumor burden to make this determination?

The instructions for coding first vs. second course treatment are clear when a treatment plan is changed, but determining whether there has been disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure can be difficult without a physician’s assessment.

For example, a patient was diagnosed with a newly diagnosed resectable pancreatic cancer; the documented treatment plan was for upfront chemotherapy, followed by repeat staging, followed by pancreatectomy. The patient completed 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, but the physician noted that the CT scan shows progressive disease, and the plan was to start a new treatment regimen with Abraxane, Gemzar, and stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) (Cyberknife). The patient completed the additional chemotherapy, radiation, and proceeded to the initially planned surgery. The pathologist staged this as yp disease, but the surgery appears to be second course treatment, and we would not code the surgery, or collect the staging (yp staging) since the physician stated this was progressive disease. The classification as yp staging can be misleading, since the resection is technically after neoadjuvant treatment, but is not collected per our guidelines. In this case, is it correct to code first course treatment as FOLFIRINOX only?