Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170070 | Primary Site/Histology--Urinary: Is a urethral lesion showing intraductal carcinoma of the prostate reportable? What is the primary site and histology code? See discussion. |
Pathology report diagnosis: Urethral lesion: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, see microscopic. Clinical Information: Urethral Lesion/Hematura. Microscopic Description: The biopsy shows dilated ductal structures filled with anaplastic epithelium showing areas of comedo-type necrosis. The tumor cells have enlarged nuclei prominent nucleoli and mitoses are identified. Surrounding benign prostatic tissue is also present. Immunostains show that the tumor cells stain for PSA, PSAP, P504s but are negative for GATA-3. The other components of the PIN 4 stain CK5/14 and P63 stain the basal cells surrounding the tumor confirming the intraductal nature of the process. Intraductal carcinoma should not be confused with high grade PIN as the former is usually associated with high grade invasive tumor. Is this C619 and 8500/2? |
The primary site is prostate, C619, and the histology is intraductal carcinoma, 8500/2. Further workup on this case is likely. If more information is received, review this case and update if needed. |
2017 |
|
|
20160070 | Primary site/MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the appropriate site and histology code for a tumor described as a "Large mass In suprasellar cistern encroaching into sphenoid & ethmoid sinuses", with the pathology described as "INI-1 deficient sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma"? Of note, this patient has a history of a pituitary adenoma, resected overseas a few months prior to this diagnosis. |
The primary site is unclear. The lesion is intracranial, but this may not be the primary site. In the absence of any additional information, assign C390, 8020/3. According to WHO, sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma can involve the nasal cavity, maxillary antrum, and/or ethmoid sinus.
SMARCB1 (INI-1) is a tumor-suppressor gene located on chromosome 22q11.2. Tumors that showed loss of expression were SMARCB1-deficient tumors which are characterized by nests, sheets, and cords of cells without any histologic evidence of specific (eg, squamous or glandular) differentiation. |
2016 | |
|
|
20081054 | First course treatment: Is subsequent treatment with R-ICE first course or second course therapy if the patient underwent ABVD x2 cycles and subsequent imaging showed no response to treatment and evidence of progression [new adenopathy] for a lymphoma case? See Discussion. |
Patient was initially diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma, Nodular Sclerosing on 3/3/06. Patient received ABVD x 2 cycles. Had disease reassessed in May, 2006, no response to treatment, showed evidence of progression (new adenopathy). Patient's pathology from 3/06 was sent for consult: Diagnosis was Hodgkin with some overlapping features of B-cell Non Hodgkin Lymphoma. Treated 5/18/06 with R-ICE FOR NHL. |
The R-ICE treatment in this case is not part of the first course. Documentation of treatment failure and/or disease progression signifies the end of the first course of treatment. |
2008 |
|
|
20091004 | Reportability--Kidney: Is the donor or the recipient the reportable patient when a cyst removed from a pre-transplanted kidney is determined to be cancerous? See Discussion. |
A patient received a kidney from her son. The son's kidney had a cyst which was removed prior to the transplant and later determined to be renal cell ca. Who do we report, the donor or the recipient? |
The renal cell carcinoma should be reported for the donor. The cyst that was determined to be carcinoma was removed before the kidney was transplanted. |
2009 |
|
|
20130023 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion. |
If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules? |
The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.
The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.
Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720. |
2013 |
|
|
20190026 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Does Rule M11 in the 04/2019 Solid Tumor Rules Urinary update apply to synchronous/simultaneous tumors only or to multiple tumors with any timing? See Discussion. |
Rule M11 states: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs, but neither the Rule nor the Notes describe the timing of these multiple urinary organ carcinomas. Timing requirements for other rules are clearly stated. Does Rule M11 have a timing requirement or is it intended to apply to all urothelial carcinoma tumors regardless of timing (and not already qualifying for application of a previous M rule)? |
The revised Urinary Solid Tumor Rules 2018 Rule M11, updated April 2019, removed the requirement of synchronous. This applies to urothelial carcinoma (8120) and its corresponding subtypes, regardless of behavior, that occur in more than one urinary site in a patient's lifetime. See change log for the April 2019 update to urinary rules.This is the same M/PH rule for multiple sites. Timing does not factor in to this rule. |
2019 |
|
|
20000839 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Does the rule in the 3rd Edition of the SEER Program Code Manual apply to cases diagnosed before 1998 that states if there are two separate carcinomas in the thyroid, one papillary and the other follicular, it is one primary and coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary and follicular carcinoma]? See discussion. |
If the rule applies to cases diagnosed before 1998, does SEER plan to ask that cases diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded? |
The rule applies to tumors diagnosed 1998-2006. The rule is not retroactive. At this time, SEER does not plan to ask that tumors diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2000 |
|
|
20240012 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Other Sites: Should an additional Note be added to Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H12, to indicate that if the diagnosis is an NOS histology in a polyp, continue on through the rules or should Other Sites Rule H13 be moved ahead of Rule H12 to capture this specific histology? See Discussion. |
The accuracy rate for SEER Workshop Case 04 (a duodenal invasive adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp) was very low because Rule H13 was either being ignored or users were stopping at Rule H12 to code adenocarcinoma. If the presence of an NOS histology in a polyp is still clinically relevant for the Other Sites module, this information will be missed due to the order of the H Rules, or the lack of clarification in Rule H12. If a change is made to Rule H12 (Single Tumor: Invasive Only module), then changes must also be made to the Single Tumor: In Situ Only module and the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module because both these modules include the same polyp coding H Rule. |
The rule order is the same as in the previous MP/H rules. Will keep as is for now. Assign codes adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp (8210), adenocarcinoma in villous adenoma (8261), and (adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenocarcinoma (8263) using Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule H12 or Rule H27 as these are specific invasive histology codes. Rule H13 applies to histology codes associated with polyps but associated with a histology term/code other than adenocarcinoma. |
2024 |
|
|
20000454 | First Course Treatment: If the patient receives no treatment at the time of diagnosis (either because it is not recommended or because the patient refused treatment at that time) but treatment is later instituted after disease progression, should this treatment be coded as part of the first course of treatment? |
The SEER rules changed in 1998 regarding what constitutes First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy. For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: The First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy fields will all be coded to 0 [None] for these types of cases. The documented disease progression would stop the timeframe for inclusion of any treatment to be part of first course of therapy. |
2000 | |
|
|
20110015 | Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion. | Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218. |
The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type. |
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
