Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20220028 | Reportability/EOD Primary Tumor--Ovary: Bilateral ovary shows gonadoblastoma with germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Pathology report clearly states in situ. Is this case reportable? If this case is reportable, how would you code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor and SEER Summary Stage (SS)? In situ code 000 for primary tumor and code 0 for SS 2018 is not given as an option. |
Report germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Assign 999 for EOD Primary Tumor and assign 9 for SS2018. This particular histology is in the Soft Tissue Abdomen and Thoracic schema where EOD PT 000 and SS2018 0 are not available. This histology will be moved to the Ovary schema after redefining certain schemas and thus making the more accurate choices for EOD and SS2018 available. The schema redefine is planned for 2024 implementation. |
2022 | |
|
|
20220018 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology code for the following thyroid primary with multiple tumors abstracted as one primary diagnosed prior to 2021? See Discussion. |
2016 Total thyroidectomy, Multifocal -Dominant Tumor: Right Lobe, Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3) -Tumors two through five: Three tumors Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3), and one tumor Papillary thyroid carcinoma, follicular variant (8340/3) -An additional tumor: Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (8343/2) |
Code this multifocal thyroid carcinoma, single primary, as papillary thyroid carcinoma, follicular variant (8340/3) using Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule H13 that says to code the most specific histologic term. We consulted with our endocrine specialty pathologist and when there is a mix of papillary and follicular variants, assign 8340. Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features is coded as 8349/1 beginning in 2021. According to the WHO Classification of Endocrine Organs, 4th edition, it was formerly classified as non-invasive encapsulated follicular variant of PTC (FVPTC) (8343/2) but was reclassified based on extremely low malignant potential. |
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 |
|
|
20220042 | First Course Treatment/Radiation Therapy: How should Lutathera be coded? CoC states XRT- Radioisotopes and SEER states Other Treatment. |
Lutathera is a radioconjugate consisting of the tyrosine-containing somatostatin analog Tyr3-octreotate (TATE) conjugated with the bifunctional, macrocyclic chelating agent tetra-azacyclododecanetetra-acetic acid (DOTA) and radiolabeled with the beta-emitting radioisotope lutetium Lu 177 with potential antineoplastic activities. |
Update to the current manual: Code Lutathera as radiation (isotopes NOS code 13). We will make this change in the next version of the SEER manual. |
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 |
|
|
20220029 | Histology/Behavior--GI Tract: What is the difference between high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia for tumors in the cervix and gastrointestinal (GI) tract? Are these terms synonymous with in situ/behavior code /2? See Discussion. |
In the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, for the uterine cervix squamous intraepithelial lesions, there is related terminology for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion HSIL (CIN3) 8077/2 and it is severe squamous dysplasia; squamous cell in situ. However, in the online WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, there is no related terminology for esophageal high-grade squamous dysplasia, 8077/2. Can you collect cases of severe dysplasia the same as cases of high grade dysplasia? |
According to a leading GI pathologist, severe dysplasia is equivalent to high grade dysplasia in the GI tract. |
2022 |
|
|
20210059 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: How is histology coded for an invasive melanoma with multiple subtype/variants? See Discussion. |
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. |
According to our dermopathology expert, code the histology to nodular melanoma 8721/3. There are numerous possible combinations of melanomas and the correct code depends on the types/variants present. We are currently working on a "Combined/Mixed Histology Code" Table for melanoma; however, it will likely not inlcude all possible combinations so continue submitting your questions to Ask A SEER Registrar. |
2021 |
|
|
20210046 | Reportability--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation synonymous with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, fibrosarcomatous, and therefore reportable for diagnosis year 2021 and forward? See Discussion. |
Patient has a 2021 skin excision showing an atypical spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Per the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, DFSP, NOS has a behavior code of /1, and DFSP, fibrosarcomatous has a behavior code of /3. There is no code listed for DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Transformation is not included as a term that can/cannot be used for the Other Sites Schema, but this type of DFSP is often described as DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. How do we code DFSP when transformation is used to describe fibrosarcomatous? |
Report DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation as it is synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 4th edition, fibrosarcomatous DFSP is a variant of DFSP and that fibrosarcomatous transformation is seen in approximately 10% of DFSP cases. It is characterized by an often abrupt transition of DFSP. |
2021 |
|
|
20210044 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Plasma Cell Myeloma: Can serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) be used as a definitive diagnostic method in the absence of a bone marrow biopsy? Is it appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) if there is no histological confirmation? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample. SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation? Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database. |
Assign code 5 in Diagnostic Confirmation. We consulted with an expert hematopathologist who stated that SPEP would qualify for a diagnostic confirmation code of 5. He also stated that normally a SPEP is followed by a bone marrow biopsy. SPEP has been added to the Definitive Diagnostic Methods for plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2021 |
|
|
20210068 | Mets at Diagnosis Fields/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How are the Mets at Diagnosis fields coded when the metastatic adenocarcinoma involves only one lymph node area and the primary site is unknown? See Discussion. |
In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found. Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0? |
In a situation like this with one area of metastatic involvement and an unknown primary, if there is no further information, we advise that the metastasis are "regional" until/unless proven otherwise. With this in mind, code the Mets at Diagnosis fields as 0, including the Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s). This case should continue to be worked up to identify the primary site. If a primary site is identified later, update the abstract accordingly. In the meantime, use text fields to describe the situation. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
