Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20240076 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Vulva: Is vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN II) alone reportable? An example is a final diagnosis from a pathology report that states only 'VIN II' with no additional details/wording. |
Report VIN II. The 2024 SEER Manual lists this as a separate diagnosis in the Reportability section under Malignant Histologies 1.a.x. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Breast: What is histology code of a breast tumor with ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type? See Discussion. |
Example: 12/2023 Breast lumpectomy final diagnosis is Invasive ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type. This is a single tumor with no in situ carcinoma present. Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma is not listed as a subtype/variant or synonym for breast carcinoma in the Solid Tumor Rules histology tables. |
Lymphoepithelial carcinoma is a subtype of SCC usually seen in skin or H&N sites and often associated with EBV. CPC SME review determined 8082/3 invalid for breast but did not recommend a substitute code. There were only 45 cases coded 8082 2001 to 2019. For this case, it's possible the lesion originated in the breast skin and progressed to breast tissue. SCC is a subtype of metaplastic breast carcinoma so one could argue it code be coded either 8575 or 8070. For this case, we recommend assigning 8500/3. Use text fields to record the details. |
2024 |
|
|
20240024 | Reportability/Histology: Is angiomyxoma (this includes borderline or behavior code /1 cases) of the soft tissue reportable? Can you provide us with coding guidelines for angiomyxoma for when its reportable or not reportable? |
Do not report angiomyxoma. ICD-O-3.2 assigns 8841/0 to this benign tumor. This includes superficial and deep (aggressive) angiomyxoma. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240021 | Solid Tumor Rules/Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “high grade dysplasia” (not specified to be squamous or glandular) reportable for esophagus, stomach, and small intestine for cases diagnosed beginning in 2024? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.” If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2? |
Report these high grade dysplasia of the following organs as stated below. Stomach: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Stomach Histologies and as described in the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition. Small intestine and Esophagus: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade, using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites Histology Rules, Rule H4/H26. The following note is listed for both of these rules. Note: This list may not include all reportable neoplasms for 8148/2. See SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual or STORE manual for reportable neoplasms The Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Esophagus Histologies and Table 7: Small Intestine and Ampulla of Vater Histologies will be updated to reflect this code as time permits. |
2024 |
|
|
20240003 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III (LIN II or LIN III)? See Discussion. |
Laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III is not included in the ICD-O-3.2 and, while the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) confirms this is reportable, neither the SPCSM nor the Solid Tumor Rules Manual provide the specific histology to use for LIN II or LIN III. Should this be coded as 8077/2 since this is most like a high grade squamous dysplasia? |
Assign histology code, 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade) for LIN III and for LIN II. ICD-O-3.2 lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II and grade III as 8077/2 indicating it is reportable. ICD-O-3.2 does not list every site-specific type of intraepithelial neoplasia. Check the SEER manual for reportable and non-reportable examples. |
2024 |
|
|
20240065 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Ovary: What is the histology code for an ovarian primary with a pathology report final diagnosis of “Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant” diagnosed in 2012 (using the Multiple Primaries H rules) and one diagnosed in 2024 (using the Solid Tumor Rules)? See Discussion. |
2012 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy Primary Site – Ovary, Right Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant 2024 Total abdominal hysterectomy - bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy Primary Site – Ovary, Left Histology - Small-Cell Carcinoma (Hypercalcemic Type), Large-Cell Variant |
Abstract this case as a single primary. Code as 8044/3 (small cell carcinoma, hypercalcemic type) listed in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 13. Small cell carcinoma, large cell variant, is a subtype of small cell carcinoma, hypercalcemic type. This table does not include all possible histologies. WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states: Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, is rare, accounting for < 1% of ovarian tumors. Small cell carcinomas, hypercalcemic type, are usually large, with a mean size of 15 cm (range: 6–26 cm). Large cells are present (in varying numbers) in half of these tumors, which are designated “small cell carcinoma, large cell subtype” if the large cells are predominant (which is rare). |
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
