SEER Inquiry System - Search

The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.

The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?

Transurethral resection: Microscopic Diagnosis: Bladder, transurethral resection: Low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma Gross Description: Received in formalin labeled with the patient's name and bladder tumor is a 3.0 x 2.0 1.0 cm aggregate of friable tan tissue biopsies. The specimen is submitted in toto, cassettes

This is all the information there is on this path report. Extent of Disease (EOD) instructions state inferred description of noninvasive: No statement of invasion (microscopic description present) SEER 2018 Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines state code behavior 3 if the only surgery performed is a transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) documenting that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen OR the pathology report does not mention whether the submucosa is free of tumor or has been invaded by tumor.

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.

Example: Patient is found to have a 9.4 cm GIST in the jejunum and 2 cm GIST in the stomach during resection, neither stated to be outright malignant. Similar to the instruction in SINQ 20190041, this case is coded as a malignant jejunal primary due to multifocal tumor. However, it is unclear how to account for the stomach tumor, or any other multifocal tumor for GIST, when coding EOD and Summary Stage.

Examples:

1) New tumor at the ileocolic anastomosis, described as a, Circumferential centrally ulcerated mass with raised borders. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through muscularis propria into subserosal adipose tissue, no involvement of the serosal surface identified. The only mention of mucosa on the resection is the uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa in the otherwise uninvolved portions of the ileum/colon. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

2) Right colon with anastomosis site. Tumor site: Anastomosis. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through the muscularis propria. Gross description does not describe mucosa, only noting, at the central area of anastomosis is an ill-defined, slightly raised, tan-brown to purple mass measuring 2.2 x 2 cm, which is nearly circumferential, causing obstruction at the site of anastomosis. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

3) Polyp at ileocolonic anastomosis, polyp biopsy final diagnosis was, Invasive moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma in association with adenoma. No mention of mucosa on the biopsy final diagnosis or gross description. Clinical info indicates, There is an ulcerated 5 cm mass at the ileo-colonic anastomosis that was biopsied. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?

This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice.

The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?

In Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS/ NST, and Subtypes/Variants), the entry for papillary carcinoma, NOS includes a change in column 3 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules that conflicts with the H Rules. It is not accounted for in the change log. No explanation is offered as to why this change was made. This is a major change because encapsulated papillary carcinoma is frequently associated with carcinoma NST, and we have not been collecting these as such.

Encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504) in column 3 now includes an indented entry, with invasive carcinoma, NST/invasive duct carcinoma 8504/3. However, most encapsulated papillary carcinomas are in situ or there is no definitive statement of invasive encapsulated papillary carcinoma, so when in situ and invasive tumors are present, we are instructed to code the invasive histology (which would be the invasive carcinoma (NST), 8500/3). How are registrars to arrive at the correct histology without a new H rule or a clarification regarding this update being documented in the change log?

Does the same change/addition apply to solid papillary carcinoma? These are often also associated with carcinoma, NST. Again, without an explanation regarding the change mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the change was made.

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

SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?

SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?