SEER Inquiry System - Search

The MRI states "Lhermitte-Duclos disease" but does not include "dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum"; is this the same as "Lhermitte-Duclos dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum (C716)"?

The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?

Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

The MP/H Rules do not specifically cover how to process urothelial carcinomas with a more specific type of carcinoma.

Patient 1: Diagnosed in April 2010 with invasive urothelial carcinoma with signet ring features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded as C679 [bladder] and 8490/3 [signet ring cell carcinoma]. In January 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is made [C679, 8120/3].

Patient 2: Diagnosed in November 2009 with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma with micropapillary and mucinous features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded C679 [bladder] and 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. In April 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of high grade papillary and flat urothelial carcinoma without evidence of invasion is made [C679, 8130/2].

Does rule M9 apply and these are new primaries?

The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085.

The MP/H Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Colon indicate that type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation are all equivalent in terms of coding histology. However, this is not indicated in the General Instructions (e.g., Histologic Type ICD-O-3 or General Instructions Histology Coding Rules). It also is not included as a Note under the Rules where one would expect to use these terms, for example, Rule H7. Is this an oversight or error in the Manual?

In this case, Rule H7 seems to be the first (and most appropriate) rule that applies to this mixed histology tumor. However, the specific histology terms that an invasive tumor may be identified as, are only listed under Rule H13. Can these same terms be used when applying rules for which they are not specifically noted? It would seem logical to use the equivalent histology terms to code a mixed histology tumor identified as a subtype or with features, etc., despite the fact that the specific terms are not listed under Rule H7.

The Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases folding table states that this should be one primary, but is this true when they are both extralymphatic in origin?

The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003.

However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not.

Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003?

The ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines and ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table indicate that insulinoma, NOS has changed behavior from /0 to /3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines do not indicate whether this change applies to tumors described as above. Insulinomas are generally neuroendocrine tumors/neoplasms, so it seems any neuroendocrine tumor described as an insulinoma should be collected as 8151/3, but does that apply to an epithelioid tumor/neoplasm also described as insulinoma?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor as a related term for histology code 8317 (Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type). However, this related term is not discussed in the implementation guidelines as being a new term/reportable tumor. The Solid Tumor Rules do not indicate a hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is reportable; however, if a registrar only looked at the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, it may seem as though this histology should be collected.

The term hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor was not included in the Solid Tumor Rules as a subtype/variant of RCC, or as an equivalent term for chromophobe RCC. There is a SINQ (20180047) that states not to report renal hybrid oncocytic tumor, despite the fact these tumors exhibit mixed features of both oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. For cases diagnosed 2021 and later, should the clarification in the SINQ apply? Or should the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table be used which indicates this is a reportable diagnosis? If the standard setters decided not to implement use of hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor for 2021, can clarification be added to the Solid Tumor Rules or Implementation Guidelines?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.