Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210041 | Reportability/Behavior--Paraganglia: Is a 2021+ diagnosis of paraganglioma reportable if the grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP) score falls outside the stated requirements for malignancy? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant. We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case. |
Report retroperitoneal paraganglioma based on ICD-O-3.2 histology/behavior that lists paraganglioma, NOS as 8680/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and forward. While GAPP is a predictor of metastatic potential, it does not factor into behavior, thus reportability. |
2021 |
|
|
20210074 | Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Pancreas: How are the neoadjuvant items coded for a patient who has unresectable pancreatic cancer and starts chemotherapy but will be evaluated after X cycles to see if patient may become a surgical candidate? |
Assign the neoadjuvant therapy data items as if the patient had neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant Therapy data item would be coded either code 1 or 2 depending on whether the chemotherapy was completed or not. In this case, they are a surgical candidate by having the chemotherapy with the plan from the beginning to evaluate the chemotherapy after X cycles to see if surgery can be performed. After the patient is evaluated, update the abstract as needed. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210007 | First Course Treatment/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: How should we be coding Reason For No Surgery of Primary Site for cases where surgery was planned but ultimately cancelled due to progression? See Discussion. |
There is a discrepancy in the SEER and STORE manual definition of code 2 for Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site. STORE includes progression of tumor prior to planned surgery as part of the definition for code 2, but the SEER Manual does not. The progression statement is included in the SEER Manual (2018 and 2021) for Reason for No Radiation, but not for Reason for No Surgery. |
Assign code 2 for cases where surgery was planned but ultimately cancelled due to progression in the data item Reason For No Surgery of Primary Site. Code 2 description contains examples and is not exhaustive of reasons for no surgery. We will add the example for consistency in the next version of the SEER manual. |
2021 |
|
|
20210075 | Reportability: What American College of Radiology Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) can be used to determine reportability? See Discussion. |
LI-RADS (liver), PI-RADS (prostate), and TI-RADS (thyroid) can be used to determine reportability. BI-RADS (breast) and Lung-RADS cannot be used to determine reportability. Can these systems below to determine reportability? C-RADS (from CT colonography) NI-RADS (head & neck) O-RADS (ovarian-adnexal) |
The following cancer cases are reportable unless there is information to the contrary. –Liver cases with an LI-RADS category LR-4 (reportable since 2021) or LR-5 (reportable since 2016) –Prostate cases with a PI-RADS category 4 or 5 (reportable since 2017) The following are not reportable without additional information. –Breast cases designated BI-RADS 4, 4A, 4B, 4C or BI-RADS 5 –Lung cases designated Lung-RADS 4A," 4B, or 4X –Liver cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-3 –Colon cases with only C-RADS information (C-RADS category C4 is not reportable by itself) –Head and Neck cases with only NI-RADS information (NI-RADS category 3 is not reportable by itself) –Ovarian or fallopian tube cases with only O-RADS information (none of the O-RADS categories are reportable without additional information) –Thyroid cases with only TI-RADS information (none of the TI-RADS categories are reportable without additional information) |
2021 |
|
|
20210071 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of invasive mammary neuroendocrine tumor (NET), grade 2/3? See Discussion. |
Table 3 (Breast Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists “Neuroendocrine tumor, well-differentiated” of the breast as histology 8246/3. There is no entry for a grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor of the breast in Table 3. The pathologist did not indicate the neuroendocrine tumor was poorly differentiated (or it would otherwise be a small cell carcinoma). The pathologist noted “By current WHO criteria, this tumor is characteristic of a mammary neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2. These invasive tumors have similar prognostic and predictive features of invasive ductal carcinoma of the same grade and stage.” |
Assign code 8249/3, neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2 based on the pathologist statement of mammary neuroendocrine tumor grade 2. According to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast, 5th edition, neuroendocrine tumor (NET) is an invasive tumor characterized by low/intermediate grade. If the histology term is not listed in the Solid Tumor rules, the instructions state to also check ICD-O and updates. Per ICD-O, NET, grade 2 is coded 8249/3. Breast Table 3 will be updated for 2023. |
2021 |
|
|
20210062 | Histology/Reportability--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case that is compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome with multilineage dysplasia (MDS-MLD) reportable, and if so, is the histology plasma cell myeloma or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? See Discussion. |
HL-7 e-path report, Final Diagnosis High normocellular marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis, multilineage dyspoiesis, compatible with MDS-MLD and involvement by plasma cell neoplasm/myeloma, IgA kappa positive, approximately 20-25% of total cellularity present. See comment. Comments Correlation with other relevant laboratory (amount and type of serum and urine paraprotein levels, renal function tests, serum calcium level, and anemia) and radiologic (lytic bone lesions) findings is recommended for complete interpretation. Dyspoiesis of all lineages is seen and the findings are compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-MLD), assuming that other possible causes are excluded. Correlation with cytogenetic and molecular studies is recommended for complete characterization |
This case is reportable. Assign MDS, NOS (9989/3) based on the information provided for this case. “Compatible with” can be used for reportability; however, it cannot be used for assigning histology. There is no confirmed diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma/neoplasm; the comment specifically addresses the need for further evaluation of this case. |
2021 |
|
|
20210023 | Reportability/Terminology--Head & Neck: Is an "evolving" squamous cell carcinoma of the vermillion border of the left lower lip reportable? |
For solid tumors, ignore the term "evolving" and apply the registry rules for reportability to this case. Squamous cell carcinoma of the vermillion border of the lower lip (C001) is reportable. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210011 | Primary site: Is C720 the correct primary site for a diagnosis of a paraspinal neuroblastoma on autopsy in a nine month old with Noonan syndrome? See Discussion. |
Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts External Examination Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area. Final Anatomic Diagnosis Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies) Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated |
Assign primary site code C473 for this case based on the information provided (peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of thorax). From our expert pathologist consultant: The origin of neuroblastomas is generally in the adrenal medulla or one of the sympathetic ganglia on either side of the vertebral column (although they have been reported in many other locations given the migration of the neural crest cells embryologically). |
2021 |
|
|
20210014 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported for a 4/2019 diagnosis of left upper lobe (LUL) adenosquamous carcinoma (left lingula mass biopsy: adenosquamous carcinoma; LUL lung biopsy: pulmonary adenocarcinoma, stated to be a collision tumor and single primary per the Tumor Board), treated with radiation followed by an enlarging LUL mass in 7/2020 found to be squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary. 5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate 10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring. 06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor. 07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic. |
Abstract two primaries: 8560 and 8140 using rule M6. One of the original tumors with adenosquamous now shows only residual SCC following XRT. PD-L-1 is not used to determine multiple primaries. Assuming three tumors (the post-XRT SCC is not a new tumor but residual from one of the adenosquamous tumors) there are two primaries: 8560 and 8140 per M6. For collision tumors, each histology identified in the tumor is used to determine multiple primaries. |
2021 |
|
|
20210047 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Colon: Does the 2018 SEER Summary Staging Manual, Digestive System Sites, Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System, #1. b., Exception, 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.)? This seems to be in conflict with Extent of Disease (EOD) 2018. See Discussion. |
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. |
For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal, NOS is a localized lesion. Intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). The involvement of the following are assigned localized in Summary Stage and assigned a behavior code of 3. Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa The Exception you cite may need to be reworded. We will review for the next version of the Summary Stage manual. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
