SEER Inquiry System - Search

Example: Patient had a 2023 nasopharyngeal mass biopsy showing “Nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type.” 

The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) do not include an H Rule that instructs us how to code histology when there are two subtypes/variants present for a head and neck primary, nor does the STR define undifferentiated carcinoma as a subtype/variant for 8072.

The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors states non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma (non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common subtype for nasopharyngeal ca, but that non-keratinizing can be subdivided into undifferentiated and differentiated subtypes.

Should histology be 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma) or 8072 (non-keratinizing SCC)?

The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm.  The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance.

No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case.

Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant?

The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel) concurrent with radiation per the managing physician. The physician stated the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy; however, it was also noted that patient completed five cycles of chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia.

The SEER Manual does not address how to code Neoadjuvant Therapy when the patient completed almost all the planned neoadjuvant therapy. It seems inappropriate to code Neoadjuvant Therapy as 2 (Started but not completed) simply because the patient did not have one cycle of chemotherapy but is otherwise felt to have completed neoadjuvant therapy per the managing physician. Does the managing physician’s statement of “completion” impact how this scenario is coded?

Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea.

11-17-2022 Blood smear:  CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3  (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations).

The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing:  A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary.

The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3).

However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module.

We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module?

Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only.

Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context?

Example 4:  Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false.

Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries?