SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example:  A prostate core biopsy showed intraductal carcinoma in 09/2022, which is an in situ tumor.  A core biopsy again showed intraductal carcinoma in 12/2022.  The subsequent radical prostatectomy in 04/2023, revealed multiple foci of invasive prostate adenocarcinoma with extensive intraductal carcinoma. 

Per Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M3, acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate is always a single primary.  Note 4, this rule applies to subtype variants of acinar adenocarcinoma listed in Table 3, which has intraductal/ductal as a variant subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma. Does rule M3 apply to incidence cases (an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor)?

The 2023 SEER Manual indicates PRRT should be coded in the Other Therapy field per coding instruction 2.d.  Likewise, SINQ 20180106 instructs to code PRRT as Other Therapy, while the discussion portion clearly outlines the radioactive nature of this modality.

Would PRRT be best coded as a radioisotope in the Radiation Treatment Modality--Phase I, II, III field rather than in the Other Therapy field?

Patient was diagnosed in September 2022 via excision of a 12 cm pelvic mass with final diagnosis of Myofibroblastoma with sarcomatous transformation.

Diagnosis comment states, “Most of the tumor is composed of conventional features of myofibroblastoma. However, a focal area demonstrates increased cellularity, fascicular growth and increased mitotic activity (up to 11 per 10 hpf), consistent with sarcomatous transformation (morphologically low to intermediate grade).”

Is this sarcomatous transformation describing a malignant transformation from an otherwise benign histology? If so, how should histology be coded in this case?

The patient was diagnosed with a biopsy-proven 12/2020 LUL SCC treated with radiation only, followed by a right hilar lymph node biopsy in 07/2022, that proved “metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma” per pathology and treated with radiation, followed by a biopsy-proven 12/2022 RLL SCC to be treated with immunotherapy only. The imaging never definitively identified a lung tumor that can be assumed to be a primary adenocarcinoma tumor.  In 06/2022, a PET scan only described a “strongly PET positive Rt inferior hilar LN vs infrahilar pulmonary mass,” as well as the subsequently biopsy-proven SCC in the RLL (12/2022 SCC primary). The biopsy path indicates this was a right hilar lymph node metastasis and does not indicate this is an infrahilar pulmonary mass. No other PET positive pulmonary lesions were seen at the time.

The oncologist’s assessment indicates the right hilar node was the only positive finding on the biopsy, and it was unclear if this right hilar node metastasis was from the left lung or if the primary was “not detectable.” The oncologist summarized this as a LUL lung lesion radiated for SCC, a right hilar lesion radiated for adenocarcinoma, and a RLL lung lesion on pathology found to be SCC.

Should the interval occurring metastatic adenocarcinoma be accessioned as a separate lung, NOS primary based on the histology difference? While the Solid Tumor Rules do not apply to metastasis, the oncologist did treat these three malignancies separately and does not indicate the hilar lymph node metastasis was felt to be from either SCC primary.

SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable.

Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful.

1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%?

2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used?  For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions?

Patient had a hemithyroidectomy with the final diagnosis above. There does not appear to be an Other Sites H rule or table that addresses this combination of histologies for thyroid primaries.

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

Example: On 01/01/2023, patient has a frontal scalp shave biopsy showing melanoma, margins involved. On 02/01/2023, frontal scalp excision shows residual melanoma. Surgery code is assigned B520 (shave followed by wide excision). How is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded now that there is an additional surgery code for the shave biopsy?

Serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant (8460/2, C569) was included in the ICD-O-3 Behavior Code/term updates effective 1/1/2018 but marked as Not Reportable for 2018.

There have been multiple additional updates to the ICD-O but no further clarification as to the reportability of this histology. ICD-O-3.2 currently lists serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant (C569) as 8460/2 with no mention of reportability and no information provided in Includes/Excludes.

SINQ 20220032 instructs capturing this histology as reportable when diagnosed 1/1/2021 or later and occurring in the testis. The answer indicates this is reportable due to the /2 behavior code in ICD-O-3.2, but it does not specify that it is limited to specific sites.

Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant reportable for ovary? If so, what dates apply? Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant of the testis diagnosed after 1/1/2021 reportable?

Patient has a history of human immunodeficiency virus and diffuse large B cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2012, and is status/post systemic therapy and in remission since completing first course treatment. In 2022, the patient has imaging suspicious for recurrence. A biopsy of a deep left cervical lymph node showed atypical lymphoid infiltrate with the comment: “This is a challenging case. The constellation of findings is most in keeping with early / focal and subtle involvement by a nodular lymphocyte predominant B-cell lymphoma. We find no evidence of involvement by a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” The managing physician later states, “Cervical lymph node biopsy (06/2022) was consistent with nodular lymphocyte predominant B cell lymphoma.”