Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250002 | Reportability/Histology--Soft Tissue: Is superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor reportable and if so what histology code should be used? See Discussion. | Patient had a left thigh soft tissue mass excision on 7/24/24 and was diagnosed with superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor. Margins were narrowly free of disease. Tumor size was 5.5 cm x 4.4 cm x 3.9 cm. The diagnosis was confirmed. |
Do not report superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor (8810/1) of the thigh. WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors, 5th ed., defines superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor as a distinctive low-grade neoplasm of the skin and subcutis, most frequently occurring in the lower extremities, especially thigh, followed by arm, buttock, shoulder, and rarely, vulva. |
2025 |
|
|
20250025 | EOD 2018/Regional Nodes--Liver: Are the celiac axis lymph nodes considered regional lymph nodes or distant lymph nodes for a 2025 liver primary? |
According to the AJCC CAnswer Forum (https://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/node/160948), celiac axis nodes are considered regional for the liver. However, for liver primaries, Extent of Disease (EOD) regional lymph nodes list the following as regional lymph nodes:
Based on this information, should celiac axis lymph nodes be considered as regional for liver primaries when coding EOD Regional Nodes? |
Code celiac axis lymph nodes as regional in EOD Regional Nodes for liver primaries. |
2025 |
|
|
20250024 | Reportability/Histology--Adrenal Gland: Is a case of pheochromocytoma reportable? The adrenal resection that was sent out for expert review final diagnosis is: Pheochromocytoma Impression with comment: Benign Pheochromocytoma based on Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) of 4. |
Report pheochromocytoma (8700/3). According to WHO Classification of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Tumors, 5th edition, patients with pheochromocytomas are currently considered to have a lifelong risk of metastases and therefore conceptually they are all considered ‘malignant.’ |
2025 | |
|
|
20250016 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Are high-grade squamous dysplasia / “severe” squamous dysplasia or glandular intraepithelial neoplasia reportable for all Head & Neck subsites? If so, what year did they become reportable? In reviewing SINQ 20240003, 20230047, and 20230046, it appears that at least the larynx, mandible, and tongue have been reportable since 2021. However, 8077/2 and 8148/2 histology codes are not included in the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) (2025 update) for Head and Neck, either in Tables 1-9 or the H Rules. |
High grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2) is reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2021. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia / glandular intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8148/2) and high grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia / squamous intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8077/2) are reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2001. Refer to other standard setters’ criteria for reportability as appropriate. |
2025 | |
|
|
20240065 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Ovary: What is the histology code for an ovarian primary with a pathology report final diagnosis of “Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant” diagnosed in 2012 (using the Multiple Primaries H rules) and one diagnosed in 2024 (using the Solid Tumor Rules)? See Discussion. |
2012 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy Primary Site – Ovary, Right Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant 2024 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy Primary Site – Ovary, Left Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant |
Abstract this case as a single primary. Code as 8044/3 (small cell carcinoma, hypercalcemic type) listed in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 13. Small cell carcinoma, large cell variant, is a subtype of small cell carcinoma, hypercalcemic type. This table does not include all possible histologies. WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states: Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, is rare, accounting for < 1% of ovarian tumors. Small cell carcinomas, hypercalcemic type, are usually large, with a mean size of 15 cm (range: 6–26 cm). Large cells are present (in varying numbers) in half of these tumors, which are designated “small cell carcinoma, large cell subtype” if the large cells are predominant (which is rare). |
2024 |
|
|
20240022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology: When should the designation of “poorly differentiated” be used to further specify histology for carcinoma, NOS (8010) as undifferentiated carcinoma (8020)? See Discussion. |
The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries). Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)? How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)? Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned. Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case? Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.” Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case? |
Assign code 8020/3 when the histologic type specifically includes the term of poorly differentiated, dedifferentiated, undifferentiated, or anaplastic undifferentiated carcinoma along with carcinoma as terms vary depending on the primary site. When the term poorly differentiated is included in the grade section only of the pathology report or only mentions poorly differentiated carcinoma without further substantiation from a pathology report as in examples 1 and 2, do not use code 8020/3. The histology code 8020/3 and terms may be used for selected primary sites as included in the Solid Tumor Rules, WHO Classification of Tumors series (latest versions), and the Site/Morphology Validation List including Nasal cavity Nasopharynx Salivary glands Urinary sites Colon, rectosigmoid, rectum Esophagus Stomach Gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct Pancreas Thyroid Ovary Uterine corpus Vagina Uterine cervix (also referred to as unclassifiable in WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.) For sites other than those listed, if the diagnosis is poorly differentiated carcinoma, code 8010/3 and poorly differentiated in the grade field. |
2024 |
|
|
20240011 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Other Sites: Other Sites Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes) requires site designations; can sites be added? See Discussion. |
There are multiple possible entries (rows) for a tumor with a neuroendocrine component and non-neuroendocrine component, but these rows do not specify which primary sites are applicable. Row 1 (Combined small cell carcinoma, 8045) seems applicable to a prostate primary, but not to a GI primary since GI primaries are now generally referred to as MiNENs (mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine tumors), but Table 2 does not provide any instructions regarding how to determine the difference between 8045 and 8154 (or 8244). For SEER Workshop Case 03 (mixed prostate case), many users selected 8154 or 8244 as the mixed histology code per Table 2, but these histology codes are not listed as applicable in Table 3 (Prostate Histologies). Per the WHO Blue Books, these histologies are not listed as applicable to the prostate. How are registrars to determine the correct mixed code without site designations, especially if they don't have access to the WHO Blue Book or to a pathologist who may be able to clarify the codes? |
Sites may be added to certain combinations when indicated by ClinCORE review for Cancer PathCHART. Please note some sites were added in the 2024 update as a result of PathCHART review. A newly-formed Solid Tumor Editorial Board and its subgroups are currently working to evaluate the Solid Tumor Manual and make recommendations on ways to improve the structure and formatting of the manual and its content. Follow the rules and instructions in the Other Sites STRs when assigning combination histology codes. Histology Coding Rules Use the Histology Coding Rules when assigning combination codes. Coding Histology Information Use this section that includes the mixed histology (Table 2) and site-specific histology tables (Tables 3-23) for one or more histologies within a single tumor. Do not use this section in place of the Histology Coding Rules. While site-specific histology tables, based on current WHO Classification of Tumors books, have been added to Other Sites STRs, not all site groups have individual histology tables; coding may require the use of ICD-O and updates. The histology tables in Other Sites STRs include additional coding instructions and notes to assign the correct ICD-O code when appropriate. The tables are not meant to be all-inclusive; rather they are intended to address difficult coding situations to facilitate the assignment of the correct histology code. Table 2: Mixed and Combination Codes Instructions Once you have identified the histology terms and have been instructed to use Table 2 by the Histology Coding Rules, compare the terms in the diagnosis to the terms in Column 1. When the terms match, use the combination code listed in Column 2. Use adenocarcinoma mixed subtypes 8255 as a “last resort” code. |
2024 |
|
|
20240066 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should histology be coded for a pathologic diagnosis of “Follicular lymphoma, diffuse pattern grade 3A of 3, equivalent to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (germinal center cell type)” when later referenced clinically as follicular lymphoma grade 3A? See Discussion. |
The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist. |
Assign histology as DLBCL (9680/3) as supported by the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition. It is consistent with how it would have been coded in the 4th edition. The Heme Manual and Database currently are based on the 4th edition. Physicians are using the 5th edition blue book, whereas the cancer registry field is not yet at this time. Regarding the Heme Manual and Database, this type of scenario is not covered because it is part of the 5th edition WHO Blue Book. The database cannot be updated until the 5th edition is approved for implementation (2026). |
2024 |
|
|
20240047 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is “high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm” of the endometrium reportable? See Discussion. |
The patient had a 2023 endometrial polypectomy and curettage with final diagnosis of “at least serous intraepithelial neoplasia arising in association with an endometrial polyp.” Diagnosis comment states, “There are multiple tissue fragments with highly atypical glandular lining consistent with a high-grade serous neoplasm. There are focal areas which are suspicious, but not conclusive, for stromal invasion.” Subsequent hysterectomy and BSO showed no residual carcinoma. According to previous SINQ 20210043, serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (STIN) is reportable when stated to be high grade. Does the same logic apply to a similar neoplasm in the endometrium and/or endometrial polyp? |
Report high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm of the endometrium. |
2024 |
|
|
20240038 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and what M Rule applies to a 2023 diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma followed by a 2024 diagnosis of pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) when the patient did not undergo surgery, but did undergo hormone therapy with Cabergoline? See Discussion. |
Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Rule M5 instructs us to abstract a single primary (as malignant) when a single tumor is originally diagnosed as non-malignant, the “First course treatment was active surveillance (no tumor resection),” and the subsequent resection pathology is malignant. This patient’s first course of treatment was not active surveillance. While the patient did not have first course tumor resection, the tumor was treated with Cabergoline. Should Rule M5 apply because there was no tumor resection? If so, should Rule M5 clearly state no tumor resection is the criteria (not active surveillance)? SINQ 20230023 does indicate a PitNET diagnosis following a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma does not fall into standard rules, but in the previous SINQ the first course treatment was a partial resection. It is unclear whether other types of treatment could result in a new malignant PitNET, following a previously treated non-malignant pituitary tumor. |
Abstract a single primary as 8272/3 (pituitary adenoma/PitNET) using the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M2, a single tumor is always a single tumor. Change the histology of the 2023 diagnosis to 8272/3. This scenario does not meet the criteria in the current rules for M5 in that it requires a resection as part of the criteria. Since the patient did not undergo resection for either diagnosis, the 2024 diagnosis may indicate recurrence or progression. A diagnosis of pituitary adenoma only is still coded 8272/0 (this code is still valid). A diagnosis of pituitary adenoma/PitNET, PitNET, or pituitary neuroendorine tumor is coded 8272/3. Cabergoline is used to treat prolactinoma or high levels of prolactin but does not impact the PitNET. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
