SEER Inquiry System - Search

Patient was initially diagnosed in 2017 with LR-5 lesions in segments 3 and 7 of liver and treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Routine scans in 2019 show no evidence of residual or recurrent disease.

Surveillance imaging in 2020 identifies LR-TR viable segment 3 treatment zone with slowly growing arterially-enhancing nodule as well as increasing arterial enhancement in the neighboring parenchyma. No new LR-4 or LR-5 observations. Patient is not a surgical candidate but is treated with Y-90 radiotherapy.

Per Rule M10, tumors diagnosed more than 1 year apart are multiple primaries. However, there is no clear clinical statement of malignancy in this case.

Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE.

The Solid Tumor histology coding guideline #3 for Lung states that an ambiguous histology can only be coded over an NOS when a physician clinically confirms it or the patient receives treatment based on the ambiguous histology; similar instructions exist in rules H3 and H12.  We are in a central registry and don't typically have access to physician notes or treatment plans; unfortunately our hospital abstracts rarely document physician confirmation of ambiguous histology and we are uncertain if we should accept their coding of the more specific histology, assuming they did find clinical confirmation that was not documented.  If not, our understanding of the Solid Tumor rules is that the histology in such a case would have to be coded as malignancy NOS (8000/3) per the non-ambiguous final diagnosis, and that we cannot use the more specific but ambiguous squamous cell carcinoma since we don't have definite clinical confirmation.  We also have a fair number of cytology-only lung cases without any hospital information to clinically confirm an ambiguous histology.

Unless there is a biopsy that proves in situ tumor (EOD code 000, Tis) or extratesticular invasion into the scrotum, penis, or further contiguous extension (EOD code 700, T4), EOD Primary Tumor must be coded based on the PATHOLOGICAL assessment (orchiectomy). There are no other CLINICAL codes because the AJCC indicates imaging is not used for local T-categorization, and the EOD derives the AJCC TNM staging. If the case can not be coded to either EOD Primary Tumor codes 000 or 700 clinically, the only clinical code that seems to apply is 999 (Unknown).

We are seeing more cases treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to orchiectomy, especially in patients with distant metastatic disease. The EOD Manual indicates that clinical evidence takes priority over pathological evidencewhen neoadjuvant treatment is given, unless the extent of disease following neoadjuvant treatment is greater than pre-treatment clinical findings. If the clinical and pathological information are the same, code the extension based on the clinical information.

Do these general rules also apply to testis even though we cannot code CLINICAL findings for these tumors? If so, will EOD Primary Tumor be coded to 999 (Unknown) for any testis primary that is not in situ or invasive into the scrotum, etc., that is treated with neoadjuvant therapy? Or should the post-neoadjuvant PATHOLOGICAL assessment be coded for these tumors because the CLINICAL assessment would otherwise be unknown?

How is the EOD Primary Tumor coded for the following two cases?

1. Left testicular mixed germ cell tumor, biopsy-proven metastasis to a supraclavicular lymph node. The left testis contained a small mass on scrotal ultrasound. The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the post-treatment orchiectomy proved no residual primary tumor (ypT0). Is EOD Primary Tumor 999 because it is clinically unknown (even though it was clinically limited) or 800 (No evidence of primary tumor) because there was no pathological evidence of tumor following neoadjuvant treatment?

2. Right testicular mixed germ cell tumor with biopsy-proven inguinal lymph node metastasis. There was a palpable mass in right testis on physical exam (not described as fixed or involving scrotum). The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the post-treatment orchiectomy proved a residual 2 cm tumor limited to the testis without lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Is EOD Primary Tumor 999 because it is clinicallyunknown or 200 (PATHOLOGICAL assessment only - Limited to testis WITHOUT LVI)?

We are preparing to send our hospitals a reminder that the behavior changes from 2 to 3 at the bottom of the basement membrane, and the T category changes from Tis to T1 at the bottom of the mucosa for colon and rectum carcinomas. We are confused by the wording of the Exception.

Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System

1.b. If the tumor has penetrated the basement membrane to invade the lamina propria, in which case it is localized and assigned Summary Stage 1 (localized) and for invasion of the lamina propria

Exception: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes cancer cells confined within the glandular basement membrane (intraepithelial); includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)

The text following (intraepithelial) is unclear. The question is: Does the text include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) mean the following:

Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma. In situ plus intramucosal carcinoma is involvement of the lamina propria, which may involve (but not penetrate through) the muscularis mucosae. Penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior 3. If that is what the text above means, then it seems that the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Manual is saying colorectal tumors reported as: adenocarcinoma in situ, at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, focally intramucosal at the margin are to be coded behavior 2 and SEER Summary stage In situ (0) like the intraepithelial carcinoma tumors. However, it conflicts with the EOD Data for Colon and Rectum, Note 2, and SINQ 20210006. The text for both EOD Data for Colon and Rectum and SINQ 20210006 is clear. According to them, the above bulleted adenocarcarcinoma examples are coded SEER Summary Stage localized (1) and behavior 3. SINQ 20210006 states that: For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion So, intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3).

According to the text for EOD Primary Tumor, Colon and Rectum, Note 2 below, intramucosal, NOS involvement is invasive.

Note 2: Code 050 (behavior code 3) includes the following:

Intramucosal, NOS

Lamina propria

Mucosa, NOS

Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa

Thank you for your help clarifying the 2018 SEER Summary Manual Exception text above.

Rule H8 of the Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules states that multiple variants of melanoma in one tumor are rare and a question must be submitted to Ask a SEER Registrar (AASR) for the correct histology code. However, our facility has seen a number of these cases in 2021 and would like to track the official answer and make it available to all in this format.

How should histology be coded for the following?

1. January 2021 diagnosis of left shoulder invasive malignant melanoma, histologic type: nodular and desmoplastic types per College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary of punch biopsy.

2. May 2021 shave biopsy of left arm invasive malignant melanoma, superficial spreading and nodular variant is listed in the CAP summary.

3. June 2021 diagnosis of right cheek invasive malignant melanoma, histologic subtype: superficial spreading and nodular seen on CAP summary of shave biopsy.

12/3/2020 Pathology: AML: Blasts 40% of nucleated cells. CD45 positive, CD34 negative, CD 117+,

CD13 positive, CD33 positive in 59.6% and HLA-DR was dim and myeloperoxidase was dim.

Cytogenetics normal karyotype. The next generation sequencing detected IDH 2p.(R172K)c515>A.

Because this was AML NOS, we consulted with the physician. The physician stated the patient had AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities"and the basis for the diagnosis was the IDH-2 mutation identified on Next Generation Sequencing. We assigned 9896/3, based on the physician's interpretation of the pathology. This histology is being questioned.