System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 12/04/2024 12:51 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20240048

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Breast: What is histology code of a breast tumor with ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type? See Discussion.

Example: 12/2023 Breast lumpectomy final diagnosis is Invasive ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type. This is a single tumor with no in situ carcinoma present.

Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma is not listed as a subtype/variant or synonym for breast carcinoma in the Solid Tumor Rules histology tables.

Lymphoepithelial carcinoma is a subtype of SCC usually seen in skin or H&N sites and often associated with EBV. CPC SME review determined 8082/3 invalid for breast but did not recommend a substitute code. There were only 45 cases coded 8082 2001 to 2019. For this case, it's possible the lesion originated in the breast skin and progressed to breast tissue. SCC is a subtype of metaplastic breast carcinoma so one could argue it code be coded either 8575 or 8070. For this case, we recommend assigning 8500/3. Use text fields to record the details.

 2024
20240025

Update to the current manual/Reportability--Esophagus: Is high grade dysplasia of the esophagus reportable? The 2024 Seer Program Manual, page 21, has an example that states it is not reportable. See Discussion.

Example 4:  Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false.

Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries?

High grade dysplasia of the esophagus is reportable. The example will be corrected in the next edition of the SEER manual.

 2024
20240073

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder:  Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs), Rule M6, says to abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor. Does that 60-day interval apply to the original diagnosis date, or to the latest recurrence? See Discussion.

10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion).

12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas).

4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis.

Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior?

SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6?

Abstract a single primary for this scenario based on Urinary Sites STRs. 

10/2017 and 12/2017 bladder diagnoses:  Single primary (Rule M15:  Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions). This interval is not indicative of recurrence as there is no clinically disease free period on follow-up.

Use the Multiple Primary Rules as written to determine whether a subsequent tumor is a new primary or a recurrence as stated in the General Instructions. The only exception is when a pathologist compares slides from the subsequent tumor to the “original” tumor and documents the subsequent tumor is a recurrence of the previous primary. Never code multiple primaries based only on a physician’s statement of “recurrence” or “recurrent.”

 12/2017 (bladder) and 4/2018 diagnoses (renal pelvis):  Single primary (Rule M11:  Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs; behavior is irrelevant.)

 2024
20240030

Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that overlaps skin and the vermillion border reportable when the percent of overlap is unknown? See Discussion.

SINQ 20031110 addresses an overlapping lip lesion between skin and the vermillion border. We were instructed to go with area of greatest involvement. Case would be reportable if >50% of tumor was on the vermillion border and site would be coded to vermillion border (C00._). Often times percentage of involvement is not stated and all that is known is that the lesion overlaps skin and mucosa.

Determine whether the lesion is on the mucosa or skin based on the pathology report, history and physical, and operative notes when available. The gross description of the pathology report should include information to help in determining whether the site of origin is epithelium (skin) or mucosa (lip).

Do not report the case when the site of origin cannot be determined between a reportable site and non-reportable site for this histology. This includes situations where the site of origin or the site with the greatest involvement is undetermined. In this case, you cannot confirm reportability.

 2024
20240008

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the term “diffuse” be added to Note 2 in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants, for the papillary glioneuronal tumor 9509/1? See Discussion.

Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor."

The correct term is diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor listed as a synonym in Column 2. 

We will add the term diffuse in Note 2, Column 1 with the 2025 updates. In the meantime, you can add "diffuse" to your pdf version until the update is published.

 2024
20240057

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for angiocentric glioma? See Discussion.

We would like to confirm that the correct histology code is 9431/1 per ICD-O-3.2, as the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Manual lists the histology code as both 9431/1 (pages 301 and 303 of the combined manual), but also shows it as a synonym for 9421/1 – Diffuse astrocytoma, MYB- or MYBL1 altered (page 304).

Assign code 9431/1 for angiocentric glioma. This has been corrected in the 2025 update. Angiocentric glioma was removed from the 9421/1 row and remains in its own row.

 2024
20240012

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Other Sites: Should an additional Note be added to Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H12, to indicate that if the diagnosis is an NOS histology in a polyp, continue on through the rules or should Other Sites Rule H13 be moved ahead of Rule H12 to capture this specific histology? See Discussion.

The accuracy rate for SEER Workshop Case 04 (a duodenal invasive adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp) was very low because Rule H13 was either being ignored or users were stopping at Rule H12 to code adenocarcinoma.

If the presence of an NOS histology in a polyp is still clinically relevant for the Other Sites module, this information will be missed due to the order of the H Rules, or the lack of clarification in Rule H12.

If a change is made to Rule H12 (Single Tumor: Invasive Only module), then changes must also be made to the Single Tumor: In Situ Only module and the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module because both these modules include the same polyp coding H Rule.

The rule order is the same as in the previous MP/H rules. Will keep as is for now.

Assign codes adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp (8210), adenocarcinoma in villous adenoma (8261), and (adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenocarcinoma (8263) using Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule H12 or Rule H27 as these are specific invasive histology codes. Rule H13 applies to histology codes associated with polyps but associated with a histology term/code other than adenocarcinoma.

 2024
20240059

Update to the Current Manual/SEER*RSA--SEER Site-specific Factor 1: The 2024 SEER Manual and SEER*RSA say that Codes 10-51 are hierarchical; use the highest code that applies (10 is highest, 51 is lowest). Should the guidance say that 51 is highest, 10 is lowest since code 10 is a HPV negative p16 test?

Assign the highest code with 51 as the highest and 10 the lowest when there is more than one test performed with differing results.

The SEER Manual will be updated in the 2025 release. SEER*RSA will be updated in a future release, version 3.3 in 2026, as version 3.2 has been updated for 2025.

 2024
20240017

EOD/Prostate Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is a pathology report from a prostate biopsy/transurethral resection of the prostate that states "with intraductal spread" extraprostatic/extracapsular extension or localized?

Code as a localized, intracapsular tumor as ductal carcinoma in situ does not invade. Intraductal spread is describing the neoplasm spreading through the acinar/ductal cells in the prostate specimen. It is an in-situ type of spread and not invasive but almost always presents with an invasive tumor.

 2024
20240042

EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Cervix: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor of the cervix coded when it invades into the bladder on surgery and noted as T4. No further information is provided, and it is not possible to contact the physician for clarification. Would you code 550 (Bladder wall; bladder, NOS excluding mucosa), 750 (Bladder mucosa), or 999 Unknown?

Assign code 550 (Bladder, NOS excluding mucosa) to EOD Primary Site based on invasion into the bladder with no mention of mucosa. EOD Primary Tumor for cervix, Note 1, instructions are to use the extension information to code primary tumor in preference to a statement of FIGO stage when both are available. TNM staging is closely related to FIGO stage, and the surgical findings of bladder invasion NOS in this case should be used in preference to the statement of T4.

 2024