SEER Inquiry System - Search

The 2022 ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines indicate “Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” is 8263/2 and is not SEER reportable. However, the 2024 SEER Manual and clarification from recent SINQs (20240021 and 20240025) confirm high grade dysplasia in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine is reportable (8148/2).

Which reportability reference applies to a diagnosis of a tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia in non-colorectal sites?

The 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update includes papillary microcarcinoma (8341/3) as the preferred term for thyroid primaries (C739). However, there are multiple SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8341/3 for diagnoses of micropapillary carcinoma of the thyroid (including SINQ 20071076, 20081127, 20110027, 20150023, and 20180008).

SINQ 20150023 specifically indicates: Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1 cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma and codes histology to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct.

Does this clarification apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later? If WHO feels the term micropapillary still does not refer to a specific histologic type for the thyroid, why is 8341/3 listed as a preferred term for this morphology/site combination? For cases 2021 and later, should a diagnosis of Incidental papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (3 mm) in left lower pole, be coded as 8341/3 per the ICD-O-3.2, or as 8260/3 per clarification in multiple SINQ entries?

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

The 2018 Solid Tumor (ST) Rules General Rules state: For those sites/histologies which have recognized biomarkers, the biomarkers frequently identify the histologic type. Currently there are clinical trials being conducted to determine whether these biomarkers can be used to identify multiple primaries. Follow the Multiple Primary Rules; do not code multiple primaries based on biomarkers.

Additionally, Biomarkers is at the top of the priority order to identify histology in several sections (it appears to be excluded from only Colon, Melanoma and Other sections). In the sections that include this rule, there is not much additional information on using biomarkers. Can you please provide further explanation for prioritizing biomarkers in the histology coding rules? For example, will the ST manual be updated when we need to look for specific biomarkers in a diagnosis?

The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table lists serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (C57.0) with a behavior code of 2.

The EOD Primary Tumor schema for Fallopian Tube shows STIC has an extension code of 100. It also maps code 100 to Summary Stage 2018 L (localized).

Summary Stage 2018 for fallopian tube only documents that intraepithelial tumors are summary stage 0 (in situ).

The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable?

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.

Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).

And

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.

The 2011 pathology report: Spine at L3 biopsy: metastatic adenocarcinoma. Per addendum: Prior total abdominal hysterectomy specimen from 2003 was reviewed and showed an ovarian mucinous cystic tumor of borderline malignancy which has a similar morphology to the invasive adenocarcinoma seen on current specimen.

Abdominal tissue and omental biopsy: invasive and non-invasive glandular implants compatible with origin from ovarian mucinous borderline tumor.

The final diagnosis per radiation oncologist was, "recurrent ovarian cancer."

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

The 11/2023 lower gum tumor is a separate tumor occurring after a disease-free interval, so we know the Head and Neck Multiple Tumors Module applies. However, our staff is having difficulty applying the rules to this particular scenario with consistent results.

Is the 11/2023 SCC a non-reportable recurrence per M12, since M4 is ignored due to patient’s prior 2017 C031 (lower gum) primary, and then M6 is ignored due to patient’s prior 05/2022 C023 primary?

Or is the 11/2023 SCC a new primary per M4, since the last diagnosis was in a site differing at the third character (C03 vs C02)? If M4 does not apply due to patient's previous C03 primary, then does M6 apply since it has been more than 5 years since the previous C03 primary?

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.