SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient has a diagnosis of invasive carcinoma of the right breast from a core biopsy on 04/2023.

Subsequent bilateral mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy proves one positive sentinel node and one negative intramammary node.

One month later there is a completion axillary node dissection with 15 nodes negative for malignancy.

Per previous SINQ 20190074, the initial mastectomy and sentinel node excision with intramammary node removal should be coded as Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 6. It is unclear how the resulting axillary dissection should be recorded in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. There is no code for sentinel node biopsy and 3, 4, or 5 at same time (code 6) PLUS an additional subsequent axillary dissection.

Please provide coding instructions for Sentinel Lymph Nodes Positive, Sentinel Lymph Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery in this scenario.

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.

Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules to address diagnoses of small cell carcinoma following prostate adenocarcinoma, but Rule M4 states the diagnoses must be greater than one year apart.

In this situation, the diagnoses were less than one year apart and one must continue through the M Rules. The next M Rule that applies Rule M19: “Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on multiple rows in Table 2-21 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant.” If one were to STOP at the first rule that applies, one would stop at Rule M19 which confirms the prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma are separate primaries, regardless of timing. If these are not to be accessioned as multiple primaries, does an Exception need to be added to M19?

Since the peripheral nerves are included in the Malignant CNS schema of the Solid Tumor Rules, neither the differences in subsite nor timing indicate these are separate primaries (Rule M10 indicates a single primary). However, these are separate MPNSTs in different sites and the tumors are not stated to be metastasis. Additionally, these are treated as separate primaries by the managing physician.

While the malignant CNS tumors do not take timing into account, is this correct for these peripheral nerve tumors that are often treated similarly to soft tissue tumors? Should Rule M8 be updated to include tumors in different peripheral nerve subsites?

There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors.

If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11?

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.”

The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario?

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?

This patient does not have a previous diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma nor a previous history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

Does the logic in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) noted in SINQ 20200052 still apply? This SINQ confirms a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8045. This matches the STRs instructions for Rule H21 and Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes), row 1. Row 1 indicates a mixed small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is combined small cell carcinoma (8045). For a patient without previous treatment, is this the correct mixed histology code?