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 | |
|
|
20240077 | 2024 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Retroperitoneum: What is the primary site code for a final diagnosis of endometrioid adenocarcinoma from a biopsy of a right retroperitoneal mass? See Discussion. |
An 80-year-old post-menopausal female (status post hysterectomy for benign reasons) presents with a retroperitoneal mass on imaging. The pre-operative imaging shows the cervix and uterus are absent. Patient undergoes a robotic left salpingo-oophorectomy with biopsy of the retroperitoneal mass. |
Code Primary Site to C480 (retroperitoneum). Endometrial tissue may "break away” from the uterus and implant throughout the pelvic and abdominal cavities. This can occur in patients who suffer from endometriosis. This tissue remains behind when surgical removal of the uterus is done. Common sites of implantation are colon, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, and bladder. These cells may become malignant. When the uterus is no longer present (patient had surgical removal), code the site where the carcinoma was identified. The site-morphology combination of C480 and 8380/3 was designated as an unlikely site-morphology combination by the Cancer PathCHART expert pathologist review, as this is a rare type of tumor. Assign a value of 1 in the Over-ride Site/Type [2030] data item in order to pass the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) edit. |
2024 |
|
|
20240043 | Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” and, therefore, non-reportable, or is this a reportable non-colorectal high grade dysplasia? See Discussion. |
The 2022 ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines indicate “Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” is 8263/2 and is not SEER reportable. However, the 2024 SEER Manual and clarification from recent SINQs (20240021 and 20240025) confirm high grade dysplasia in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine is reportable (8148/2). Which reportability reference applies to a diagnosis of a tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia in non-colorectal sites? |
A diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum is not equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade.” Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade (8263/2) is not reportable as of 2022. High grade dysplasia (glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III) is reportable in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine (8148/2). |
2024 |
|
|
20240025 | Update to the current manual/Reportability--Esophagus: Is high grade dysplasia of the esophagus reportable? The 2024 Seer Program Manual, page 21, has an example that states it is not reportable. See Discussion. |
Example 4: Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false. Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries? |
High grade dysplasia of the esophagus is reportable. The example will be corrected in the next edition of the SEER manual. |
2024 |
|
|
20240062 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an MRI finding of “statistically meningioma” reportable? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only. Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context? |
If you cannot clarify this with the involved physicians, do not report this case of meningioma based on information provided. There is no indication that the patient was treated or further evaluated for meningioma. |
2024 |
|
|
20240058 | Summary Stage 2018--Ovary: What is the summary stage for an ovarian primary in 2024, in which the ovary capsule was ruptured with surgical spill? See Discussion. |
In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology. Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018. |
Code SEER Summary Stage 2018 to Localized, Code 1. Per consult with AJCC and noted in the Primary Peritoneal Chapter in AJCC 8th edition, an intraoperative rupture is coded as a surgical spill. A capsule rupture is when the capsule ruptures prior to the surgery (Summary Stage Regional, Code 2). |
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 |
|
|
20240008 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the term “diffuse” be added to Note 2 in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants, for the papillary glioneuronal tumor 9509/1? See Discussion. |
Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor." |
The correct term is diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor listed as a synonym in Column 2. We will add the term diffuse in Note 2, Column 1 with the 2025 updates. In the meantime, you can add "diffuse" to your pdf version until the update is published. |
2024 |
|
|
20240060 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for a lung case with a diagnosis only stated as "high-grade neuroendocrine tumor" in 2022? As the disease was advanced, limited workup was done, and no more specific diagnosis was provided. See Discussion. |
SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents. |
Assign 8249/3 for high-grade neuroendocrine tumor of the lung. WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, defines two subtypes of neuroendocrine tumor of the lung, typical carcinoids (8240/3), and atypical carcinoids. WHO assigns typical carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor grade 1 as 8240/3 and atypical carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor grade 2 as 8249/3. They are regarded as low-grade and intermediate-grade, respectively. The preferred term for 8249/3 in ICD-O-3.2 is neuroendocrine tumor grade 2, with neuroendocrine tumor grade 3 as a related term. The Lung Solid Tumor Rules assign atypical carcinoid as 8249/3. |
2024 |
|
|
20240064 | Primary Site/Histology--Ovary: We are encountering a primary site, histologic type, and behavior combination edit based on the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) tables. Using the CPC*Search tool, C569 and 8441/3 is a valid combination. The diagnosis date is 01/13/2024. Should an over-ride be applied with this combination? |
The CPC Validity Status of the site morphology combinations of C569/8441/3 and C569/8441/2 was revised from Valid to Unlikely with the latest release of the Version v24A Edits Metafile. As a result, this site and morphology combination will now require an over-ride flag to be set. Code as 8461/3 (high-grade serous carcinoma) or 8460/3 (low-grade serous carcinoma) if at all possible. Use 8441/3 (serous carcinoma, NOS) only if it cannot be distinguished as low grade or high grade. The codes for high-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are relatively new. High-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are very different tumors and pathologists should state whether it is high grade or low grade. Please make every attempt to use the newer codes. If unable to determine high gade versus low grade, assign 8441/3 and override the edit. The files on the CPC website are currently being updated, and CPC*Search will be updated to reflect the changes sometime this Fall. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
