System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 08/27/2025 07:20 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20240044

First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Esophagus: Should the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item be coded as 1 or 2 when the patient completes all but one cycle of the planned neoadjuvant therapy and the managing physician notes the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion.

The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel) concurrent with radiation per the managing physician. The physician stated the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy; however, it was also noted that patient completed five cycles of chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia.

The SEER Manual does not address how to code Neoadjuvant Therapy when the patient completed almost all the planned neoadjuvant therapy. It seems inappropriate to code Neoadjuvant Therapy as 2 (Started but not completed) simply because the patient did not have one cycle of chemotherapy but is otherwise felt to have completed neoadjuvant therapy per the managing physician. Does the managing physician’s statement of “completion” impact how this scenario is coded?

Assign code 2, Neoadjuvant therapy started, but not completed OR unknown if completed, for the 2024 SEER Manual data item Neoadjuvant Therapy. Assign code 2 when neoadjuvant therapy was begun and the patient did not complete the full course of neoadjuvant therapy. See Coding Instruction #3 on page 230. The fact that the patient completed five cycles of the planned chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia is important information and should be abstracted correctly and documented via text data items.

 2024
20240010

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion.

Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment.

If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected?

Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added?

Assign code 8574/3 only when there is

A history of androgen-deprivation therapy or

No history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma

Prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation (PCND) can present as untreated primary pathology (i.e., a new primary) or more commonly as a post ADT and androgen receptor inhibition resistance phenomenon.  PCND is either a newly diagnosed prostate cancer or a result of ADT indicated for treatment of other prostate cancers or other non-cancer diagnoses (e.g., benign prostatic hyperplasia) but not for the PCND diagnosis.

We will edit the notes to make them more clear.

 2024
20240054

EOD 2018/Primary Tumor--Breast:  We are having difficulty deciding when we can or cannot use physician-assigned TNM staging to code EOD data items if the medical record or hospital abstract documentation is unclear.  As a central registry, we are unable to query physicians for clarification. Please advise what is a “discrepancy” in the EOD General Instructions to “Use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record.”  See Discussion.

We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines?

A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes?

Use all information available in the medical record. EOD is a combination of the most precise clinical and pathological documentation of the extent of disease as instructed in the EOD 2018 General Instructions, Extent of Disease section.

EOD 2018 General Instructions, General Coding Instructions section advises to use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record. When there is doubt that the documentation in the medical record is complete, code the EOD corresponding to the physician staging. A discrepancy can exist within the medical record when the information in the chart is unclear, incomplete, or conflicting, for example, the TNM staging from pathology differs from the medical oncologist’s TNM staging.

In the scenario provided, use the medical oncologist stage information that takes into account imaging and exam findings. Based on the stage cT4 N3b, assign

EOD Primary Tumor: 400

Extensive skin involvement

WITHOUT a stated diagnosis of inflammatory carcinoma

WITH or WITHOUT dermal lymphatic filtration

EOD Regional Nodes: 600

Internal mammary node(s), ipsilateral, clinically apparent

(On imaging or clinical exam)

WITH axillary (level I, II, or III) lymph node(s), ipsilateral including infraclavicular

2024
20240030

Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that overlaps skin and the vermillion border reportable when the percent of overlap is unknown? See Discussion.

SINQ 20031110 addresses an overlapping lip lesion between skin and the vermillion border. We were instructed to go with area of greatest involvement. Case would be reportable if >50% of tumor was on the vermillion border and site would be coded to vermillion border (C00._). Often times percentage of involvement is not stated and all that is known is that the lesion overlaps skin and mucosa.

Determine whether the lesion is on the mucosa or skin based on the pathology report, history and physical, and operative notes when available. The gross description of the pathology report should include information to help in determining whether the site of origin is epithelium (skin) or mucosa (lip).

Do not report the case when the site of origin cannot be determined between a reportable site and non-reportable site for this histology. This includes situations where the site of origin or the site with the greatest involvement is undetermined. In this case, you cannot confirm reportability.

 2024
20240013

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Testis: Can a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) be added to the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.

We included this histology in SEER Workshop Case 12 and the histology coding accuracy was less than 40%. From emails we received, it is clear that registrars are unaware that the "somatic type malignancy" can vary but code 9084 applies when the diagnosis is teratoma WITH any non-germ cell tumor component. It may be helpful to add a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) to the Solid Tumor Manual.

We will add the same definition for teratoma with malignant transformation found in the ovary table: 9084/3 Teratoma with malignant transformation when a malignant (/3) histology arises in a benign teratoma.

Teratoma with malignant transformation and teratoma with somatic-type malignancy are synonoyms. The term teratoma with somatic-type malignancy is outdated and no longer recommended.

 2024
20240023

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Penis:  Why is warty carcinoma listed in Other Sites, Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as 8051 when the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003 indicate the correct histology is 8054 for this neoplasm? See Discussion.

The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003.

However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not.

Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003?

Assign histology code 8054/3 for warty carcinoma. Assign 8051/3 for verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma cuniulatum. 

The WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition (2022) revised the terminology for squamous cell carcinoma groupings from "non-HPV-related" to "HPV-independent" and from "HPV-related to "HPV-associated". Warty carcinoma is defined as a "morphologically distinct HPV-associated verruciform neoplasm that shares histological features with a giant condyloma but has definitive cytological atypia and a malignant infiltrative architecture."  Verrucous carcinoma (including carcinoma cuniculatum) is defined as an HPV-independent squamous cell carcinoma, and is correctly coded to 8051/3.

The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 23, Penis and Scrotum Histologies will be updated to reflect this revised terminology and coding.

 2024
20240035

Solid Tumor Rules--Urinary: The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules refers to the same row in Table 3. Should the example say Table 2 since Table 3 is non-reportable urinary tumors. See Discussion.

Rule M15

Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions.

Note: The same row means the tumors are

• The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR

• One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR

• A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR

• A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant

Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3.

The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules should refer to Table 2. We will update this in the next revision of the Rules.

 2024
20240021

Solid Tumor Rules/Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “high grade dysplasia” (not specified to be squamous or glandular) reportable for esophagus, stomach, and small intestine for cases diagnosed beginning in 2024? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion.

SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.”

If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2?

Report these high grade dysplasia of the following organs as stated below.

Stomach: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Stomach Histologies and as described in the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition.

Small intestine and Esophagus: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade, using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites Histology Rules, Rule H4/H26. The following note is listed for both of these rules.

Note: This list may not include all reportable neoplasms for 8148/2. See SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual or STORE manual for reportable neoplasms

The Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Esophagus Histologies and Table 7: Small Intestine and Ampulla of Vater Histologies will be updated to reflect this code as time permits.

 2024
20240070

Reportability/Histology:  Does Cancer Pathology Coding Histology And Registration Terminology (Cancer PathCHART) determine if the histology is reportable or do we have to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheet?

The CPC ICD-O-3 Site Morphology Validation Lists (SMVLs) designate all tumor site-morphology combinations that are either valid or impossible as determined for the sites reviewed by the Cancer PathCHART initiative. These lists provide information on the Validity Status of specific tumor site and morphology combinations, similar to the way the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation List used to. However, the CPC SMVLs do not include information on the reportability of specific tumor site and morphology combinations. For tumor reportability, you will continue to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheets posted to the NAACCR ICD-O-3 Coding Updates website: https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/, and the most recent SEER Manual and federal, state, local, and other standard setters' reportability requirements.

 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