SEER Inquiry System - Search

SINQ 20160023 and the Solid Tumor Rules indicate NET G1 (or well differentiated NET) is coded as 8240 and NET G2 is coded as 8249.

Clarification regarding grade coding in the CAnswer Forum indicates well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor refers to the histologic type, and not the grade. Therefore, the term well differentiated is ignored for the purpose of grade coding.

Neither of these sources clarifies how to code histology for a tumor diagnosed as well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.

In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).

There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.

If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

IMPRESSION/PLAN: Patient is a previously healthy middle aged woman with a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). We will proceed with a neoadjuvant course of radiation and concurrent chemotherapy (5-FU) to maximize local regional control and survival, and hopefully facilitate a sphincter-sparing resection in the future. The primary tumor and the pelvic nodes at risk will receive 4500 cGy delivered over 25 treatments. The primary tumor will subsequently receive an additional 1080 cGy delivered over 5 treatments, for a cumulative dose of 580 cGy.

PATHOLOGY: Adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). The patient is referred by (dr) for a neoadjuvant course of chemoradiotherapy.

HPI: Patient presented recently with rectal bleeding and a change in bowel habits. Colonoscopy revealed an ulcerated mass located 4.0 cm above the anal verge. A biopsy was positive for invasive well-differentiated adenocarcinoma that arose from a tubular adenoma. A staging work-up demonstrated no evidence of metastatic disease.

The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do.

The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case.

However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case.

This question involves positive cervical lymph nodes with an unknown primary site. The SEER Manual says under the coding instructions for Primary Site:

14. b.Use the NOS category for the organ system or the Ill-Defined Sites (C760-C768) if the physician advisor cannot identify a primary site.

Note: Assign C760 for Occult Head and Neck primaries with positive cervical lymph nodes.

Schema Discriminator 1: Occult Head and Neck Lymph Nodes is used to discriminate between these cases and other uses of C760. Does SEER agree with AJCC that cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are EBV+ should be coded to the nasopharynx and cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are p16+ should be coded to the oropharynx, if no primary site is identified?

We previously downloaded the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update tables which included the note, not reportable for 2018, for both of these terms (with an updated histology 8071/2). SINQ 20180020 confirms differentiated penile and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia are NOT reportable for 2018 (as does 20160069). However, when looking at the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update table today, the not reportable for 2018 comment has been removed and it appears these two terms are reportable. Which is correct?

Example: Left thyroid lobectomy with final diagnosis

When the only mention of encapsulation is included in the tumor characteristics of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary, not the pathologist's choice of histologic type, what is the preferred histology?