SEER Inquiry System - Search

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?

The 10/2023 TURBT final diagnosis is “Urothelial carcinoma with mixed histologic appearances, see synoptic summary below for details.” The synoptic report includes, “Histologic Type Comment: Invasive carcinoma percentages: Micropapillary 60-70%, high grade or poorly differentiated urothelial 20-30%, squamous 10-20%.” The squamous component is stated to be “Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation.”

It appears there are two specific urothelial carcinoma subtypes to consider: Urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary variant (8131/3) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (8020/3). The squamous component would not be considered because there is no specific histology for “squamous differentiation.”

The micropapillary component is the predominant histology (60-70%) in this case, and it does seem like this is important to capture. However, the WHO Blue Book indicates poorly differentiated carcinoma of the bladder has a poor prognosis.

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

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.

The case in question represents an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation that arises in the absence of androgen-deprivation therapy. A 2023 journal article states, “We show that amphicrine prostate cancer is a unique entity and differs in clinical and molecular features from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the prostate. Our study highlights the need to recognize AMPC as a unique molecularly defined subgroup of prostate cancer.”

Should we be coding this with histology 8140 (Adenocarcinoma, NOS) because we have no specific code for an amphicrine carcinoma? Should we code this as 8045 (Mixed small cell carcinoma) because this is possibly the only way to capture both the adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine components in a patient without previous treatment?

Our concern about using histology code 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation) is that, while a valid histology code, this might confound the data if researchers are trying to separate the truly treatment-related tumors from other histologies captured under 8574.

The patient has a history of ganglioglioma, WHO grade I, involving the deep right parietal lobe diagnosed on resection in 07/2012. Tumor recurrence in 2017 was treated with radiation.

The patient then had right temporal tumor biopsy and resection 06/2021 with final diagnosis of anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, BRAF p.V600E mutant, WHO Grade III. Pathologist notes that the tumor demonstrates a ganglioglioma with frequent mitoses and possible vascular proliferation. Subsequent consult findings support an anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, compatible with progression of the patient's ganglioglioma that is post-irradiation. However, the pleomorphic and epithelioid areas are also reminiscent of pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, which may occur in combination with ganglion cell components. There is no related SINQ to code this histology.

Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed in January 2023 with final diagnosis of myxoid and epithelioid leiomyosarcoma.

Diagnosis comment states: The tumor is 15 cm per report. It grows in nests and poorly formed interanastomosing trabeculae and cords that are separated by abundant myxoid background. The cells have an epithelioid morphology with eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and very prominent nucleoli. The mitotic activity is overall low ranging from 1 to 3/10 HPFs.

Immunohistochemical stains performed at the outside hospital showed diffuse positivity for SMA, desmin, caldesmon, and PR. They are negative for CD10, claudin-4, calretinin, HBM45, MART1 (rare weakly positive cells), PANCK, and SOX10. This immunohistochemical profile supports a smooth muscle derivation of this neoplasm. As this tumor is extensively myxoid, diagnostic criteria differ from the spindle cell leiomyosarcoma.

Per Solid Tumor Rules Other Sites, Table 16: Uterine Corpus Histologies, Epithelioid Leiomyosarcoma (8891/3) and Myxoid Leiomyosarcoma (8896/3) are both subtypes of Sarcoma, NOS (8800/3).  Per Rule H21, use a combination code when there are multiple specific histologies AND the combination is listed in Table 2 OR there are coding instructions for the combination in the applicable histology Tables 3-21 OR you receive a combination code from Ask A SEER Registrar.  Since there is no combination listed in Table 2 and there is no instruction for the combination in Table 16, how should the histology be coded for this tumor?

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?

We are aware of the instruction for melanoma cases outlined in SINQ 20230034; however, it is unclear if this should also apply to cutaneous lymphomas and Kaposi sarcomas, or if the intent of the procedure is used for these specific types of skin cases that typically present with multifocal involvement.

Example 1: Patient is diagnosed March 2023 with primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma presenting as pink, tan patches on the trunk. Punch biopsy diagnosed CTCL and treatment was given via narrow band UVB phototherapy.

Example 2: Patient is diagnosed February 2023 with Kaposi sarcoma presenting as widespread violaceous macules, papules, plaques on the torso, bilateral extremities, and abdomen. Punch biopsy diagnosed Kaposi sarcoma.

Example #1: Cervix loop electrocautery excision procedure (LEEP) pathology: Histologic Type: Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated. Histologic Type Comments: High-risk HPV testing on previous Pap test sample reported as positive for high-risk HPV. The prior Pap diagnosis was HSIL only with molecular results positive for high-risk HPV.

Example #2: Cervix endocervical curettage and biopsy with CIN 3, p16 diffusely positive. Subsequent LEEP with superficially invasive squamous carcinoma (no HPV or p16 testing done). This was followed by an additional cone excision that was negative for residual malignancy and p16 testing was also negative.

ICD-O-3 tells us that perianal skin is C445 and we do not capture basal or squamous cell skin cancers in our registry. The AJCC manual stages perianal skin cancers within 5 cm of the anus with the anus chapter.  We cannot AJCC stage them as an anus if we are not capturing them as C445.  I realize we do not code a site in order to stage. We have been following the reportability rules and not capturing. Is this correct? I do not see this addressed in the new Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.