Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210063 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary, Fallopian Tubes: How many primaries should be reported and for which primary site(s) when pathologist identifies bilateral ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma with involvement of the left fallopian tube (also showing serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC))? See Discussion. |
Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction. If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11. |
Bilateral ovarian tumors are a single primary per M7. Abstract the STIC as a second primary. SINQ 20210025 is intented to address situations with confliciting information about the primary site. The answers remain unchanged in 2012009 and 20210025. |
2021 |
|
|
20210065 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Histology--Lung: Should there be an exception to the Solid Tumor Rules for Lung to allow coding a more specific histology described by ambiguous terminology, when the only pathologic workup done is a cytology report? Due to the unique nature of lung cases which are often diagnosed on imaging and cytology without more definitive pathology, we are seeing many cases where the existing Solid Tumor guidelines result in very generic NOS histology codes. For example, lung mass found on imaging with a fine needle aspirate of a lymph node, final diagnosis "positive for malignancy" and comment "consistent with squamous cell carcinoma." See Discussion. |
The Solid Tumor histology coding guideline #3 for Lung states that an ambiguous histology can only be coded over an NOS when a physician clinically confirms it or the patient receives treatment based on the ambiguous histology; similar instructions exist in rules H3 and H12. We are in a central registry and don't typically have access to physician notes or treatment plans; unfortunately our hospital abstracts rarely document physician confirmation of ambiguous histology and we are uncertain if we should accept their coding of the more specific histology, assuming they did find clinical confirmation that was not documented. If not, our understanding of the Solid Tumor rules is that the histology in such a case would have to be coded as malignancy NOS (8000/3) per the non-ambiguous final diagnosis, and that we cannot use the more specific but ambiguous squamous cell carcinoma since we don't have definite clinical confirmation. We also have a fair number of cytology-only lung cases without any hospital information to clinically confirm an ambiguous histology. |
Code histology as squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070/3) using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H3 if no other information is available. Rule H3 states: If the case is accessioned (added to your database) based on a single histology described by ambiguous terminology and no other histology information is available/documented, code that histology. |
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 |
|
|
20210069 | EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Intrahepatic Bile Duct: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor (PT) be coded for invasion of or into (but not through) the visceral peritoneum for an intrahepatic bile duct primary? See Discussion. |
Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage. EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage. |
Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor for now. We have confirmed with AJCC that "invasion of" but not "through" the visceral peritoneum maps to a T2 and not T3. Involvement of the visceral peritoneum for Summary Stage is Regional and does not make a distinction between "invasion of" or "invasion through." Any involvement of the visceral peritoneum is regional. To correct this situation would require a new code, which would derive a T2/RE. That code will be added to the updates for 2023. Code 500 will derive the appropriate Summary Stage of 2 (Regional). We are aware that this will derive the incorrect T; however, there is no work around at this time that will derive the correct T and Summary Stage, so we are defaulting to deriving the correct Summary Stage. |
2021 |
|
|
20210001 | SEER*RSA/Required data items--Melanoma: The site-specific data item, Ulceration, states it is required by "All" in SEER*RSA but in the NAACCR Data Dictionary table it states is it required by SEER, Commission on Cancer (CoC), and Canadian Cancer Registry (CCCR), not the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). Does the definition of "All" in SEER*RSA not include NPCR? Also, please explain the difference between Required by: "All" and "Required by CCCR/Canada, COC, NPCR, SEER" (all listed out). |
Use the NAACCR Data Dictionary Required Status Table or refer to standard setter requirements. Do not use SEER*RSA to determine which data items are required to be collected or transmitted. Though "All" in SEER*RSA generally refers to the standard setters including CoC, NPCR, CCCR, and SEER, some items in SEER*RSA need updating; this is planned for 2022. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210031 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are lipomas of the spinal column reportable as a benign tumor of the central nervous system (CNS)? This is seen occassionally at our pediatric facility. |
Spinal cord tumors (including lipomas) are reportable when they arise in the spinal dura or nerve root. The tumor must be of the spinal cord itself or within the spinal cord dura. Spinal cord tumors are reportable when they arise in the intradural space. A reportable intradural tumor can be either intramedullary or extramedullary. Extramedullary intradural spinal tumors are reportable. A spinal tumor originating in the extradural space is not reportable. If it is outside the dura, it is not reportable because it would be outside the CNS. They are not reportable when they arise in the peripheral nerves. |
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 |
|
|
20210073 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Corpus Uteri: How many primaries should be reported when a hysterectomy identifies primary endometrial carcinosarcoma (8980/3) and the endometrium has a background of endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) (8380/2)? A tumor size is provided for the carcinosarcoma, but not the background EIN. |
Patient was diagnosed with carcinosarcoma of Mullerian origin on omental/pelvic biopsies in March 2021. First course treatment was neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by July 2021 resection showing residual primary endometrial carcinosarcoma with cervical stromal invasion and involvement of bilateral tubes/ovaries, omentum, and mesenteric nodule. Additional findings included endometrium with background endometroid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). |
Abstract this case as a single primary and code histology as carcinosarcoma (8980/3). The carcinosarcoma is intermixed with the EIN making this a single primary coded to the invasive histology. EIN is a precursor of endometrial carcinoma in the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition. Carcinosarcoma of the uterus is described in the literature as an aggressive variant of endometrial carcinoma characterized by unusual histologic features including discrete malignant epithelial and mesenchymal components (carcinoma and sarcoma). |
2021 |
|
|
20210028 | Histology/Biliary tract--Ampulla of Vater: What is the histology code for Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion? See discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed on 01/2020, and primary site on the pathology report is Ampulla of Vater (C241). Synoptic Report states histology as: Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion. I have reviewed the ICD-O-3 coding table and found histology Intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasm (C25_) code 8503/2. Based on the Matrix principle (Rule F on the ICD-O-3), I will change the behavior to 3 and code as 8503/3. If I look in ICDO-3, Tubulopapillary adenocarcinoma is coded 8263/3. |
Assign code 8163/3. Based on the microinvasion, the correct term for this neoplasm is pancreatobiliary-type carcinoma. Unfortunately, WHO did not provide all synonyms or related terms for some of the new ICD-O codes. Pathologists may continue using non-preferred terminology as well. |
2021 |
|
|
20210037 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date? |
Answer revised 3/31/2022 Do not report cases based only on the TI-RADS category. The most recent information from ACR on TI-RADS indicates that neither TI-RADS 4 nor TI-RADS 5 is clearly defined as malignancy. TI-RADS 4 is "moderately suspicious" and TI-RADS 5 is "highly suspicious" but they do not specify what they are suspicious for. We need more information to determine reportability. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
