Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20220007 | Histology: Is there any guidance on using STRATA Oncology testing (molecular tumor profiling tests), such as StrataNGS and StrataEXP, to code SSDIs, histology, etc? I do not see anything in STR, SEER Program Manual, SINQ, or CAnswerForum. We are seeing the testing with our 2021 paths. |
We recommend that you do not use information from these molecular tumor profiling tests until they become a standard diagnostic tool. If/when that happens, we will add information to the various manuals. |
2022 | |
|
20220026 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Parotid: How is histology coded for a myoepithelial carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma of the parotid? |
Patient has a 2021 left parotidectomy showing myoepithelial carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma. Is this coded to myoepithelial carcinoma (8982/3) or carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma (8941/3)? It is unclear how to arrive at the correct histology code using the current Solid Tumor Rules. |
Code myoepithelial carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma as carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (CXPA) (8941/3) using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule H1 as this is a single histology. The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., describes CXPA as a rare epithelial and/or myoepithelial malignance arising in association with a primary or recurrent pleomorphic adenoma. The histologic type of the carcinoma component is usually recorded, in this case, myoepithelial carcinoma. |
2022 |
|
20220031 | Tumor Size/Neoadjuvant Treatment: If a patient discontinues neoadjuvant therapy and then has surgery, how is the pathologic tumor size coded with the pathologic tumor size greater than the clinical tumor size? Currently, we are instructed to code 999 for the pathologic tumor size when neoadjuvant therapy is given; what happens when neoadjuvant chemotherapy is discontinued after 3 cycles (plan for 4 cycles)? |
Assign 999 for pathologic tumor size when patient has received neoadjuvant therapy, even when neo-adjuvant therapy is not completed. Describe the details in text fields. |
2022 | |
|
20220004 | First Course Treatment/Cancer-directed Treatment: What information can registrars use to determine disease progression and whether treatment counts as first course treatment? See Discussion. |
Is a physician’s statement of progressive disease adequate to determine disease progression in coding first vs. second course treatment? Can an increase in tumor burden (i.e., a change in overall stage) be used by the registrar to determine disease progression? Often, determining disease progression is difficult as there are no guidelines in the SEER Manual related to this topic. It seems a physician’s statement of progressive disease should always be accepted. However, that statement is not always available. While it seems an increase in tumor size alone would not be “progressive disease” as tumors will continue to grow, can registrars use an increase in tumor burden to make this determination? The instructions for coding first vs. second course treatment are clear when a treatment plan is changed, but determining whether there has been disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure can be difficult without a physician’s assessment. For example, a patient was diagnosed with a newly diagnosed resectable pancreatic cancer; the documented treatment plan was for upfront chemotherapy, followed by repeat staging, followed by pancreatectomy. The patient completed 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, but the physician noted that the CT scan shows progressive disease, and the plan was to start a new treatment regimen with Abraxane, Gemzar, and stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) (Cyberknife). The patient completed the additional chemotherapy, radiation, and proceeded to the initially planned surgery. The pathologist staged this as yp disease, but the surgery appears to be second course treatment, and we would not code the surgery, or collect the staging (yp staging) since the physician stated this was progressive disease. The classification as yp staging can be misleading, since the resection is technically after neoadjuvant treatment, but is not collected per our guidelines. In this case, is it correct to code first course treatment as FOLFIRINOX only? |
Determining first course treatment is based on knowing the treatment plan and its course as to whether it was completed as initially planned. Read the medical record, scans, labs, and physician notes. First course of therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed as planned. Alternatively, first course of therapy ends when there is documented disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure. A change to a drug in a different group or a change to a different treatment modality indicates the end of the first course of treatment. While a physician/clinician statement of progression, additional imaging, or other procedures that assess treatment efficacy, or increase in tumor burden can be used to denote progression, recurrence, or failure, a change to the initial treatment plan is a signal to to the registrar to suspect the end of first course of therapy. Once the initial treatment plan is changed, everything after the change is subsequent treatment. In the scenario provided, code FOLFIRINOX as first course of treatment. Based on the information provided, the Abraxane, Gemzar, and SBRT are second course and everything that followed that is second or subsequent course. The physician noted progressive disease and a new treatment regimen was started -- this is a clear indication of the end of the first course of treatment. The planned treatment course was FOLFINOX and surgery. Once that initial treatment plan is changed, everything after the change is no longer first course of treatment. Use text fields to document the details. |
2022 |
|
20220040 | Laterality--Brain and CNS: Can Laterality be coded as 5 (midline) for a sella turcica meningioma (or tuberculum sellae meningioma) when no other statement regarding tumor laterality is documented? See Discussion. |
Laterality is often not noted for these sella turcica meningiomas; therefore, Laterality is often coded as 9 (Unknown). Because the sella turcica appears to be a midline structure in the base of the skull, is Laterality code 5 (midline) more appropriate when additional information is unavailable? |
You may assign code 5 (Paired site: midline tumor) for laterality of a meningioma of the sella turcica (C700). The 2022 SEER manual states in Laterality coding instruction 5: Assign Laterality code 5 only when the primary site is C700, C710-C714, C722-C725, C443, C445. Do not assign code 5 to sites not listed in 5.a. Note that code 9 is for paired sites and there is no information concerning laterality. Document laterality information in the appropriate text field. Note: Laterality does not factor into the CNS Solid Tumor rules. |
2022 |
|
20220006 | Histology/Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a 2021 diagnosis of “neuroepithelial tumor with PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, not elsewhere classified” found during a right thalamic mass resection? See Discussion. |
Patient has a remote history of a right thalamic mass status-post two resections; reported as malignant oligodendroglioma (pathology not received) and chemo/radiation therapy, who recently presented with persistent headaches. Imaging revealed a 3.4 cm heterogeneous lobulated right thalamic mass with coarse calcifications and a probable cystic component. Pathologist indicates the histologic and immunophenotypic features of this neoplasm are that of relatively circumscribed neuroepithelial tumor without high grade features (mitotic activity, microvascular proliferation, necrosis). Molecularly this neoplasm is characterized by a PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, which has recently been proposed to be a distinct neuroepithelial tumor entity with a broad histological spectrum. |
Assign 8000/1. Neuroepithelial tumor with PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, not elsewhere classified, is not recognized as a distinct entity at this time. It is not listed in ICD-O-3.2 or in the 5th edition of the WHO CNS classification. |
2022 |
|
20220041 | Primary Site/Histology--Intrahepatic Duct: How are primary site and histology coded for cholangiocarcinoma cases when the pathology only shows a liver tumor and other involvement. See Discussion. |
A common scenario is a patient has a positive CT of the abdomen/pelvis for liver mass only. Biopsy of the liver mass is positive for cholangiocarcinoma. The physician is also calling the liver tumor the primary site with histology of cholangiocarcinoma. There is no evidence of intrahepatic bile duct (C221) or gallbladder (C240) involvement which are sites specific to this histology. The hematology/oncology consult stages this as Stage IIIA, T3N0M0 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Can we code cholangiocarcinoma with site code C220 (liver) or should we assume that C221 (intrahepatic bile ducts) would be a better code to reflect this histology? |
Assign C221 (intrahepatic bile duct) as the primary site for cholangiocarcinoma (8160/3). Our expert GI pathologist confirms that even when intrahepatic bile ducts are not specifically mentioned, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma originates in the intrahepatic bile ducts. |
2022 |
|
20220010 | EOD 2018/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Myeloid Sarcoma: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor coded for a myeloid sarcoma with multifocal skin involvement? See Discussion. |
Patient has a diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma presenting as multiple erythematous papules and nodules on back, chest, right arm & shoulder. Oncologist did not mention any evidence or suspicion of an associated AML diagnosis. HemeRetic schema EOD Primary Tumor Note 1 states that myeloid sarcoma can be coded as localized (code 100) or systemic (code 700). It is not clear what would qualify as systemic disease for myeloid sarcoma. |
Assign code 100, localized, using the 2018 EOD Primary Tumor, HemeRetic schema, for the myeloid sarcoma with skin involvement since only the skin is involved. Use code 700, distant or disseminated, when multiple organs are involved. |
2022 |
|
20220036 | Solid Tumors Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: How is histology coded for head and neck primaries when a tumor is diagnosed as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma with multiple subtypes? See Discussion. |
Example Case 1: 2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type. Example Case 2: 2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive. Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)? |
Assign 8083/3, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC), in both examples. It is more important to capture the variant than to code 8085 or 8086. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., states that BSCC is a distinctive form of SCC, characterized by prominent basaloid morphology, squamous differentiation, and aggressive behavior. Some primary sites capture p16 status as a Site Specific Data Item; you may record the p16 results when that is the case. |
2022 |
|
20220025 | Reportability/Histology--Anal Canal: For cases diagnosed in 2021, is anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) II reportable? There is conflicting information regarding the reportability for AIN II. SINQ 20210048 says to report AIN II but the 2021 SEER Manual Appendix E states intraepithelial neoplasia (8077/2 and 8148/2) must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable. |
AIN II is reportable for 2021. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia. The wording in Appendix E of the 2021 SEER manual (must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable) was left over from earlier versions and is not correct for 2021 diagnoses. Follow the guidance in SINQ 20210048. |
2022 |