Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190046 | Tumor Size/Bladder: The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual says to use imaging over physical exam as priority for determining tumor size. If a bladder tumor is 4 cm visualized on cystoscopy, and is 2.8 cm on CT scan, which should be used as the clinical size? Is cystoscopy (endoscopy) a clinical exam or imaging? |
For the case described here, use the size from the CT scan. Physical exam includes what can be seen by a clinician either directly or through a scope. A tumor size obtained visually via cystoscopy is part of a physical exam. Therefore, the imaging (CT) tumor size is preferred. Use text fields to describe the details. |
2019 | |
|
|
20140064 | Reportability--Testis: Is a mature teratoma of the testis reportable? See discussion. |
Mature teratoma is listed as a benign neoplasm (9080/0) in the ICD-O-3. SINQ 20120085 references a NAACCR Webinar that indicated pure mature teratomas of the testis in adults are reportable. We are not aware of any further documentation of this change in reportability. When did mature teratomas of the testis for adults become reportable? What is the defined age range for "adult"? The original SINQ question above lists the 2012 SEER Manual as a Reference, however, no clarification or mention of this change in reportability was found in that manual. |
For testis, mature teratoma in an adult (post-puberty) is reportable because it is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0). The 2011 NAACCR webinar introduced this concept and it was documented in the 2012 SINQ question. You may use 2011 or 2012 as the date of this change. The next edition of the SEER manual will include reportability examples. |
2014 |
|
|
20210023 | Reportability/Terminology--Head & Neck: Is an "evolving" squamous cell carcinoma of the vermillion border of the left lower lip reportable? |
For solid tumors, ignore the term "evolving" and apply the registry rules for reportability to this case. Squamous cell carcinoma of the vermillion border of the lower lip (C001) is reportable. |
2021 | |
|
|
20021015 | Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site? | For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.
The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.
The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation. |
2002 | |
|
|
20210047 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Colon: Does the 2018 SEER Summary Staging Manual, Digestive System Sites, Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System, #1. b., Exception, include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)? This seems to be in conflict with Extent of Disease (EOD) 2018. See Discussion. |
We are preparing to send our hospitals a reminder that the behavior changes from 2 to 3 at the bottom of the basement membrane, and the T category changes from Tis to T1 at the bottom of the mucosa for colon and rectum carcinomas. We are confused by the wording of the Exception. Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System 1.b. If the tumor has penetrated the basement membrane to invade the lamina propria, in which case it is localized and assigned Summary Stage 1 (localized) and for invasion of the lamina propria Exception: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes cancer cells confined within the glandular basement membrane (intraepithelial); includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) The text following (intraepithelial) is unclear. The question is: Does the text include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) mean the following: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma. In situ plus intramucosal carcinoma is involvement of the lamina propria, which may involve (but not penetrate through) the muscularis mucosae. Penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior 3. If that is what the text above means, then it seems that the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Manual is saying colorectal tumors reported as: adenocarcinoma in situ, at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, focally intramucosal at the margin are to be coded behavior 2 and SEER Summary stage In situ (0) like the intraepithelial carcinoma tumors. However, it conflicts with the EOD Data for Colon and Rectum, Note 2, and SINQ 20210006. The text for both EOD Data for Colon and Rectum and SINQ 20210006 is clear. According to them, the above bulleted adenocarcarcinoma examples are coded SEER Summary Stage localized (1) and behavior 3. SINQ 20210006 states that: For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion So, intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). According to the text for EOD Primary Tumor, Colon and Rectum, Note 2 below, intramucosal, NOS involvement is invasive. Note 2: Code 050 (behavior code 3) includes the following: Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa Thank you for your help clarifying the 2018 SEER Summary Manual Exception text above. |
For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal, NOS is a localized lesion. Intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). The involvement of the following are assigned localized in Summary Stage and assigned a behavior code of 3. Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa The Exception you cite may need to be reworded. We will review for the next version of the Summary Stage manual. |
2021 |
|
|
20020024 | Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable? | For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.
Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries. |
2002 | |
|
|
20130009 | Grade--Pancreas: Can the grade be coded when a biopsy is taken from the part of a primary tumor that has contiguously extended into an adjacent organ or structure? See Discussion. | The grade rule states to code grade from tissue removed from the primary tumor only, never from a metastatic site or a site of recurrence. There is no mention of whether the grade can be coded if only the contiguous site of involvement is biopsied when a single tumor directly extends to an adjacent tissue or organ. For example, is grade coded to 2 when a pancreatic tumor extends into the duodenum, and the duodenal biopsy confirms moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma consistent with a pancreatic primary? Or does the primary organ/site have to be biopsied in order to be able to code grade? | For one tumor involving a contiguous site, when there is no tissue specimen available from the primary site, you may code the grade based on the tissue from the tumor in the contiguous site.
This instruction is included in the upcoming grade instruction document. |
2013 |
|
|
20170074 | Reportability--Kidney: Is a renal cell neoplasm stated to be multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential a reportable tumor if the physician refers to the tumor as renal cell carcinoma in a follow-up note after surgery? If reportable, how is histology coded? See Discussion. |
The partial nephrectomy final diagnosis is renal cell neoplasm. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Summary lists histology as: multilocular clear cell neoplasm of low malignant potential. The diagnosis comment adds: This neoplasm currently termed multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential (WHO 2016), was previously termed cystic renal cell carcinoma. |
For now, report the case and code to 8310/3. In the 3rd Ed WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, multilocular clear cell RCC is coded as 8310/3, however the recent 4th Ed WHO Tumors of Urinary System notes this term is obsolete and a synonym for multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (8316/1) which would be non-reportable. Per WHO 3rd Ed these tumors never recur or metastasize which may be why the behavior code is shown as /1. The standard setters must review this terminology change in relation to reporting the case as it may impact incidence rates. |
2017 |
|
|
20190082 | Primary site/Histology--Peritoneum: What is the correct primary site code for peritoneal mesothelioma in a female? When I use C482, it seems that the fields are all geared towards primary peritoneal carcinoma with FIGO staging, etc. |
For mesothelioma, NOS (9050) and epithelioid mesothelioma (9052) of the peritoneum for females, assign C481, C482, or C488 as appropriate based on the site of origin in the medical documentation. The Primary Peritoneal Ca schema is assigned and you will need to complete the SSDIs for FIGO staging, CA-125 PreTx Interpretation, and Residual Tumor Volume Post Cytoreduction. If the histology is 9051 or 9053 with primary site of C481, C482, or C488 for females, the Retroperitoneum schema is assigned. The only SSDI for this schema is Bone Invasion. |
2019 | |
|
|
20051136 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is the surgery field coded when an excisional biopsy that is originally stated to be negative is later determined to be positive on ROS and a mastectomy with negative findings is performed 2 years later? See Discussion. | Hospital 'A' performed a breast biopsy and found only atypia. Two years later Hospital 'B' re-read the first biopsy as multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type. A mastectomy at Hospital 'B' followed and all specimens from this were negative. Do we report the procedure at Hospital 'A' an excisional biopsy, despite the negative findings at the time? |
For hospital A, follow the instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual on page 5, #4. For hospital B, the case is not reportable. The diagnosis date is the date of first excision. Code the breast excision from Hospital A as surgery, first course treatment. The mastectomy was not part of first course treatment. |
2005 |
An official website of the United States government
