Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230030 | Primary site: Is there a physician priority list for coding primary site? For example, the surgeon states during a pancreatectomy that the primary is in body while the pathologist states in their synopitc report that primary is neck; neither is in agreement, or neither is available for confirmation. |
As a general rule, the surgeon is usually in a better position to determine the site of origin compared to the pathologist. The surgeon sees the tumor in its anatomic location, while the pathologist is often using information given to him/her by the surgeon and looking at a specimen removed from the anatomic landmarks. However, when a pathologist is looking at an entire organ, such as the pancreas, he/she may be able to pinpoint the site of origin within that organ. In the case of pancreas body vs. neck, the neck is a thin section of the pancreas located between the head and the body. It may be a matter of opinion whether a tumor is located in the "body" vs. the "neck." In the situation you describe, we would give preference to the surgeon and assign the code for body of pancreas, C251. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2020 diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma treated by lumpectomy is followed by a 2023 diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma treated by mastectomy? See Discussion. |
Historically, multiple invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas diagnosed within 5 years were abstracted as a single primary. However, it is not clear if Rule M10 or M14 applies to this situation per the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules updates. Rule M10 addresses multiple tumors of carcinoma of no special type (NST)/duct and lobular, but there is no timing criteria mentioned. Does M10 apply to cases diagnosed synchronously, or metachronously, or at least within 5 years? Should Rule M10 include a Note instructing registrars to accession a single primary for the scenario in question? If timing matters for Rule M10, then the next rule that applies is M14. Rule M14 instructs one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3, and carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma are on separate rows in Table 3. |
Abstract a single primary using the Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, assuming the tumors are in the same breast. This rule is specific to multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular. Timing is not a factor in this rule. As stated in ‘New for 2023,’ the rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2. Tumors occurring more than five years apart are multiple primaries and would have been caught at Rule M5. Thus, rule M10 pertains to tumors occuring less than five years apart. |
2023 |
|
|
20230043 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for a lung tumor diagnosed as “Minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous, grade 1, lepidic-predominant”? See Discussion. |
The resection pathology report final diagnosis indicates this is both mixed mucinous and non-mucinous with a lepidic predominant component. The pathologist notes this is “Lepidic: 75%. Acinar: 25%.” The percentage of the mucinous component is not documented. Rule H1, Note 1, states “When mucinous carcinoma is mixed with another histology, such as adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, code mucinous ONLY when mucinous is documented to be greater than 50% of the tumor.” While mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous carcinoma is included in Table 2 (Combination/Mixed Histology Codes) without a required percentage, it is unclear whether one should move past Rule H7 and use Rule H8 to code this combination histology code. Rule H7 would instruct one to code the histology to lepidic adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant) based on the percentage of the lepidic component in the tumor. However, this does not address the mixed mucinous and non-mucinous diagnosis. Which H Rule and histology apply to this case? |
Assign histology code 8254/3 (mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma) to this lung tumor using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H4. This is a new code/term approved by IARC/WHO for ICD-O. Rule H4 instructs one to code the histology when only one histology is present. In this case, the pathologist indicates the tumor is mixed mucinous and non-mucinous histologies. The non-mucinous carcinoma that is seen in this mixed histology may be identified as: Adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, or lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. In this case it is lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. Lepidic is a recognized histology in lung. It is not unusual for the pathologist to indicate mixed non-muncinous and mucinous adenocarcinoma AND also list the non-mucinous subytpe. It is important to capture both mucinous and non-mucinous histologies which drives treatment, etc. |
2023 |
|
|
20230018 | SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion. |
Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory). Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory? |
Answer updated April 2025 A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors. Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment. However, if a change to hormone therapy or immunotherapy is due to a change in the patient's ER, PR, or Her2 status, this could signify a new course of treatment. The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle. |
2023 |
|
|
20230054 | Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: According to SINQ 20140058, solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable (as of 2014). However, per ICD-O-3.2, this histology is not reportable until 2021+. Please clarify which is correct and clearly state the timeframe that it was reportable or not reportable. |
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable for cases diagnosed in 2014 and later. Report solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas (8452/3) as the guidance in SINQ 20140058 is still in effect. The 4th and 5th editions of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the digestive system define solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas as a low-grade malignant pancreatic tumor. |
2023 | |
|
|
20220002 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Cervix: For cases diagnosed 1/1/2022 and later, how is histology coded for the following three cervix cases relating to p16? See Discussion. |
The 2022 SEER Manual indicates the p16 status (positive or negative) can be used to code more the specific histology for squamous cell carcinoma, human papilloma virus (HPV) positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086). However, the histology coding instructions in the Other Sites schema have not been updated and the 2022 SEER Manual does not cover all situations commonly encountered in the registry. Does the clarification regarding p16 apply to these other situations?
|
For cases diagnosed beginning 1/1/2022, assign histology based on new codes and terms for the examples of cervical cancer using the available p16 results as follows. 1. Adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, NOS (C53._) (8484/3) 2. Carcinoma, squamous cell, HPV-associated (C53._) (8085/3) 3. Carcinoma, squamous cell, HPV-independent (C53._) (8086/3) The 2022 SEER Manual states: Beginning with cases diagnosed 01/01/2022 forward, p16 test results can be used to code squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086). Use the available results as the rules for Other Sites have not been updated yet. The SSDI Manual data item p16 for Cervix schema also states that p16 is based on testing results and not a physician statement. We can address these situations in a future version of the Solid Tumor Rules. The Other Sites rules will provide document priority when coding hsitology: biopsy vs. resection, cytology vs. histology, primary site vs. mets or regional site. |
2022 |
|
|
20220047 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: Is a patient with 2020 neck mass, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), p16-negative, who then had a biopsy of the right tonsil (C09.9) in July 2022, SCC p16-positive, one or two primaries? Is this coded to 8070/3 using pre-2022 rules or a new, second primary p16-positive, 8085/3. See Discussion. |
History provided by the oncologist Right neck mass since 2019; 04/07/20, initial biopsy p16-negative SCC, delay of treatment due to patient preference, agreed to biopsy of tonsil and work-up August 2022; right tonsil biopsy: p16-positive, G2 SCC, nodal mass at that time >6 cm with extensive extranodal extension, Stage III (cT2, cN3, cM0, p16-positive); based on this history, was staged as a tonsil primary and p16-positive. Patient details 1. March 2020, CT neck and chest revealed a 0.5 x 2.7 x 2.3 cm low-density necrotic nodal mass at right neck level 2 suspicious for metastatic disease. There was a slight asymmetric increased size of the right palatine tonsil. There are a few sub-4 mm pulmonary nodules which are nonspecific. 2. April 7, 2020, FNA of right neck mass with pathology revealed p16-negative SCC 3. April 20, 2020, PET/CT revealed 3 x 2 cm right-sided level 2 node with FDG avidity 4. May 5, 2020, flexible laryngoscopy showed no obvious primary lesion 5. May 2020, after evaluation by a medical oncology, patient declined any treatment 6. June 17, 2022, return visit in medical oncology after PET/CT demonstrates significant progression in the neck; patient definitively declines chemo, but would like surgical opinion. Now has more rapidly progressive disease with skin breakdown and weeping from malignant lesion right neck. 7. June 22, 2022, radiation oncology consultation 8. July 15, 2022, tonsil biopsy: Invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated with LVI, p16-positive 9. Patient now agreeing to treatment with radiation: Tooth extractions 8/30/2022, radiation planning 9/14/2022 10. Patient consulted with cancer specialist who explained surgery is not recommended given level of extranodal extension and risk of seventh cranial nerve paralysis and fistula formation with surgical excision and who recommended chemoradiation 11. September 9, 2022, patient presented for radiation CT simulation/treatment planning and informs treatment team. Patient declined/refuses concurrent chemotherapy despite recommendations from two cancer institutions. |
Abstract a single primary of the tonsil. The diagnosis date is March 2020 (the date of the CT scan). Assign 8070/3 for the histology. Metastases were found in 2020 before the primary of tonsil was determined in 2022. The oncologist information confirms this. |
2022 |
|
|
20220036 | Solid Tumors Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: How is histology coded for head and neck primaries when a tumor is diagnosed as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma with multiple subtypes? See Discussion. |
Example Case 1: 2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type. Example Case 2: 2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive. Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)? |
Assign 8083/3, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC), in both examples. It is more important to capture the variant than to code 8085 or 8086. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., states that BSCC is a distinctive form of SCC, characterized by prominent basaloid morphology, squamous differentiation, and aggressive behavior. Some primary sites capture p16 status as a Site Specific Data Item; you may record the p16 results when that is the case. |
2022 |
|
|
20220013 | Reportability/Histology--Kidney: What is the histology and behavior of a papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity? See Discussion. |
Patient had a partial nephrectomy with final diagnosis of papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity. Diagnosis comment states: Papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity is currently considered to be a histologic variant of papillary renal cell carcinoma; however, recent studies suggest that it has a very indolent clinical behavior. |
Report papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity as 8260/3. According to the WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition, this is a distinctive pattern of papillary renal cell carcinoma that has been recently recognized. These tumors have recurrent mutations of KRAS, differing from typical papillary renal cell carcinoma. We recommend that you include with reverse polarity in your histology text to differentiate this entity from others classified in 8260/3. |
2022 |
|
|
20220011 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology: When the only source of information states the diagnosis as two terms, one reportable and one non-reportable, separated by a "slash" (/), should we report the case using the reportable term? See Discussion. |
For example: -ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term -bladder biopsy pathology report: severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly. |
If possible, try to obtain further information. If no further information can be obtained, accession the case using the reportable term, melanoma and CIS in the respective examples, when there is a single report in which both reportable and non-reportable diagnostic terms are listed with a slash and there is no other information. Most often, the slash indicates the terms are being used synonymously. |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
