Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240034 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Skin: Is keratoacanthoma (8071/3) of the skin reportable? This code is also for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), keratinizing. In the 2024 SEER manual, 8071/3 falls under the not reportable section of skin (outside of specific sites). |
Do not report keratoacanthoma of the skin (8071/3). The preferred term for keratoacanthoma is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), keratinizing, NOS. According to the 2024 SEER Manual, Reportability section, SCC of skin (8050-8084) is not reportable. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240067 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Kidney: Is a clinical diagnosis of a right kidney lesion with a “75% chance of malignancy” reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm. The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance. No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case. Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant? |
If you are unable to follow up with the physician, do not report this case until or unless more information becomes available. |
2024 |
|
|
20240007 | Histology--Brain and CNS: Provide clarification about the priority order of histology coding sources and an explanation of why the annotated histology lists are not the same as the WHO IARC ICD-O-3.2 Excel Table (adopted 1/1/2021). See Discussion. |
We have had multiple users unable to find the applicable histology in the ICD-O-3.2 (i.e., the site-specific table did not include the histology) because they were using the annotated histology list and could not find the complete list of related terms or synonyms for the histology code. For example, the ICD-O-3.2 lists Medulloblastoma, SHH-activated, NOS as a related term for 9471/3, but many users were unable to find this valid histology because they were using the annotated histology list, not the ICD-O-3.2. |
The NAACCR Annotated Histology List (AL) serves as an aid to registry software vendors for implementing annual histology changes. This file has been maintained by the Registry Plus team at CDC’s NPCR for several years and reflects modifications to ICD-O-3 implemented by North American cancer registries over time. Although this list is reviewed multiple times prior to posting, there is no guarantee of 100% accuracy. As such, the AL is not a substitute for referring to various standard-setter documents and implementation guidelines. In this instance, Medulloblastoma Desmoplastic SHH-activated and TP53-wildtype 9471 is across several resources: the Solid Tumor Rules, Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves module in Table 3, column 3 as a subtype/variant of Medulloblastoma NOS 9470; in the CNS WHO 5th Edition BB; and in the WHO IARC ICD-O-3.2 posted to ICD O 3 Coding Updates (naaccr.org). Although the exact related term of Medulloblastoma, SHH-activated, NOS is not listed, the NAACCR Implementation Guidelines for 2024 recommend checking the 2024 ICD-O-3 Update Table 1 or 2 to determine if the histology is listed. If the histology is not included in the update, then review ICD-O-3.2 and/or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database and/or Solid Tumor Rules (MP/H). The Cancer PathCHART initiative has been undertaken to address gaps such as this between standard setting resources. Having all the standard histology coding resources included in a single all-inclusive database enables alignment of morphology codes & terms included in the CPC*SMVL (Cancer PathCHART Site-Morphology Validation List), Solid Tumors Rules, ICD-O-3 Annual Updates, NAACCR Annotated Histology List as well as the WHO 5th edition Blue Books. Please see Cancer PathCHART - Tumor Site-Morphology Surveillance Standards Initiative for more information on the Cancer PathCHART initiative, and more specifically, see Transitioning the Annotated Histology List to Cancer PathCHART (naaccr.org). |
2024 |
|
|
20240074 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient had a 2023 nasopharyngeal mass biopsy showing “Nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type.” The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) do not include an H Rule that instructs us how to code histology when there are two subtypes/variants present for a head and neck primary, nor does the STR define undifferentiated carcinoma as a subtype/variant for 8072. The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors states non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma (non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common subtype for nasopharyngeal ca, but that non-keratinizing can be subdivided into undifferentiated and differentiated subtypes. Should histology be 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma) or 8072 (non-keratinizing SCC)? |
Assign histology as 8072 for non-keratinizing SCC, undifferentiated subtype. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition assigns 8072/3 to squamous cell carcinoma, non-keratinizing, NOS in the nasopharynx. As the tumor exhibits a variety of architectural patterns and appearances histologically, they can be further classified as undifferentiated or differentiated subtypes. These subtypes do not change the histology code. |
2024 |
|
|
20240033 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Stomach: Is a carcinoid tumor of the stomach diagnosed on 01/01/2023, on a patient who was followed up by Gastrointestinal (GI) and was found to have another stomach carcinoid on 02/01/2024, one primary or two? See Discussion. |
Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification. |
Stop at the first rule that applies which is M12. Per note 3: When it is unknown/not documented whether the patient had a recurrence, use date of diagnosis to compute the time interval. This means there are two primaries. There is a genetic syndrome that causes multiple carcinoid tumors in the GI tract, per our GI expert, and they should be treated as new primaries per M12. SINQ 20110046 describes a unique situation whereby the subject matter expert felt that the occurrence of multiple tumors was due to an unknown underlying condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. |
2024 |
|
|
20240019 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head and Neck, Other Sites: Do human papilloma virus (HPV) histologies that occur with subtype/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in various sites apply only to sites in Solid Tumor Rules, Head and Neck, Table 5 and Other Sites, Table 23? See Discussion. |
The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids contain notes that say beginning 1/1/2022, keratinizing or non-keratinizing SCCs, HPV positive or HPV negative, are coded 8085 or 8086, respectively, for sites listed in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 only. Table 5 introductory section also states for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward: “When the diagnosis is a subtype/variant of squamous cell carcinoma and HPV status is also noted, code the subtype/variant.” This latter instruction is also included in Other Sites Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as a “Penis Coding Note.” Do these instructions ONLY apply to sites on those tables (and only to Penis or to Scrotum also in Table 23)? How should we code HPV-related keratinizing/non-keratinizing or other subtype/variant SCCs, for sites NOT on those tables, given the fact that only the more common histologies are listed in the Solid Tumor tables? For example, we recently reviewed a case with HPV-positive basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (C21.0). |
Code the specific histology as stated by the pathologist according to the site-specific instructions in the Solid Tumor Rules. When the histology provides a subtype/variant in addition to the HPV histology codes, code the subtype/variant as it is important to capture this histology as in the example provided. the instruction to code the subtype/variant over 8085 or 8086 applies to the following sites: oropharynx, cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, and penis. A note will be added indicating this in 2025. Per 2024 Cancer PathCHART expert pathologist review, morphology codes 8085/3 and/or 8086/3 are valid and applicable to head and neck, oropharynx, cervix, vagina, vulva, fallopian tube, anus, and penis (reference: Cancer PathCHART: Product Downloads and Timelines). Other coding resources will be updated to reflect these changes in 2025. |
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 |
|
|
20240002 | First Course Treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should treatment data items be coded for a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and symptomatic anemia treated with Reblozyl (Luspatercept)? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has a 04/2023 diagnosis of symptomatic anemia not responsive to Retacrit. Further testing includes diagnostic bone marrow biopsy 10/2023 proving MDS with low blasts and SF3B1 mutation, treated with Relozyl (Luspatercept). There is no SEER*Rx listing for Reblozyl or Luspatercept. Per web search, Luspatercept, sold under the brand name Reblozyl, is a medication used for the treatment of anemia in beta thalassemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Is this non-cancer directed treatment since it is given to address the anemia rather than the MDS? If cancer-directed treatment, how should it be coded? |
Do not code Reblozyl (luspatercept) as treatment. Luspatercept is an ancillary drug approved to treat anemia associated with MDS but not the malignancy. |
2024 |
|
|
20240053 | Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is a 2022 diagnosis of “clear cell renal cell papillary tumor” on nephrectomy reportable? See Discussion. |
We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3. While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1. |
Report clear cell renal cell papillary tumor (CCRCPT), formerly classified as clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma, and assign code 8323/3 until this new term and code (8323/1) have been adopted by standard setters. The Kidney Solid Tumor Rules advise to code clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as 8323/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th ed., has reclassified this histology as a /1. This change has not yet been implemented and it remains reportable. WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th ed., has since reclassified clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as CCRCPT (8323/1). The name change was made because there have been no reports of metastatic events for this indolent tumor. The term clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma is no longer recommended. |
2024 |
|
|
20240009 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology --Brain and CNS: Why is high grade astrocytoma with piloid features (HGAP) not grouped together with the other astrocytoma histologies as a subtype/variant of astrocytoma? See Discussion. |
It appears there was some confusion about finding this new malignant HGAP tumor (2023+) code. If this is not a specific subtype/variant of astrocytoma, can clarification be added to the “New for 2023” entry for HGAP? |
HGAP is listed as a separate classification and is not a subtype of the diffuse gliomas. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 5th edition, has two categories dealing with non-pediatric astrocytic tumors: Adult-type diffuse gliomas Circumscribed astrocytic tumors HGAP falls into the second category as a result of updates to the 4th edition WHO classification in 2016 with advances in the role of molecular diagnostics with the 5th edition. All astrocytic tumors were previously grouped together whereas not all diffuse gliomas (astrocytic or not) are grouped together on the basis of growth pattern and behaviors, and shared IDH1 and IDH2 genetic status. The new classification separates astrocytomas that have a more circumscribed growth pattern, lack IDH gene alterations, and sometimes have BRAF mutations (i.e., pilocytic astrocytoma). The impact of molecular advances has driven classification changes as described in the 5th edition. Review of site/histologiy combinations for CNS neoplasms is currently being performed by Cancer PathCHART experts. It's possible they will recommend HGAP be moved to a subtype/variant of astrocytoma, NOS. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
