Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20240046 | Reportability/Histology--Stomach: According to the AJCC manual, histology codes 8240 and 8249 are excluded from site code C160. Does that mean that I cannot use either of these histology codes with C160 even if the pathologist's diagnosis is neuroendocrine carcinoma? |
Please understand that AJCC sets the standards for TNM Staging and the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) initiative sets standards for the validity of site and morphology combinations. The statement in the AJCC manual “8240 and 8249 are excluded for topography code C160” means that these two histologies are not staged using the AJCC Staging System. As with numerous other reportable entities that are not staged by AJCC, the case is reportable and a Summary Stage should be assigned. Combinations of C160 with 8240 or 8249 are valid site/histology combinations for registry reporting and should not be discouraged from use if they correspond to the pathologist’s diagnosis. This goes for any other similar note in the AJCC manual. All CPC standards are enforced via the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) N7040 and Histologic Type ICDO3, Primary Site, Date of Diagnosis (NAACCR) N4911 data quality edits. Registrars can also look up the validity of site and morphology combinations using the CPC*Search tool: https://seer.cancer.gov/cancerpathchart/search/tool/. It is important to remember the following.
|
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 |
|
|
20240005 | SEER Manual/Mets at Diagnosis--Lung: Would calvarium lesions invading the brain be both brain and bone metastasis or only bone metastasis? See Discussion. |
Lung cancer, 2022 12/1/2022 PET/CT showed destructive hypermetabolic bone lesions in right frontal and left posterior calvarium. Left posterior calvarium lesion involves portions of left parietal and temporal bones w/invasion of mastoid air cells. 1/4/2023 MRI Brain showed large destructive mass involving left posterior temporal calvarium that extends into left mastoid region and may invade left distal transverse sinus. 2/8/2023 Radiation Oncology follow-up note: MD states there are extensive calvarium metastasis with the left parietal lesion invading the brain causing edema and MS-like changes. 2/13/23 Radiation Oncology Final Letter- Patient was treated with 1 EBRT fraction aimed at brain/skull before enrolling in hospice. |
Abstract as bone metastasis for the first two examples. Abstract as both bone and brain metastasis for the third and fourth examples in the respective Mets at Diagnosis fields based on the description provided. |
2024 |
|
|
20240068 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovary case with a diagnosis of “high grade papillary serous carcinoma” in 2023? This term is not in the Solid Tumor Rules and ICD-O 3.2 updates. Is “high grade papillary serous carcinoma” equivalent to “high grade serous carcinoma” (8461) or to “papillary serous adenocarcinoma” (8441) with high grade captured only in the Grade fields, or is there another more appropriate code? |
Assign code 8461/3 for high-grade papillary serous carcinoma. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240027 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2005 diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme is followed by a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4? See Discussion. |
The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3). Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.” |
Abstract two primaries using the 2024 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M13. Glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type (9440/3) and astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 (9445/3) are on two separate rows in Table 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System, 5th edition, lists the subtypes of glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type as giant cell glioblastoma; gliosarcoma; and epithelioid glioblastoma. The term glioblastoma multiforme is not recommended for glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype in the 5th edition, and lists astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 as a subtype of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20240063 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: How many primaries and what M Rule applies for a diagnosis of noninvasive micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (8131/2) in 2019, followed by a diagnosis of noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2) in 2024? |
Abstract two primaries using Urinary Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M12. The histologies include non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2) and non-invasive micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (8131/3). The two histology codes are listed as subtypes of Papillary urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in column 3 of Table 2. WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition classifies micropapillary urothelial carcinoma as an aggressive subtype of urothelial carcinoma with carcinoma in situ present in more than half of all micropapillary carcinomas. Rule 7 Note 3 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules states that there are no /2 subtypes for urothelial carcinoma with the exception of papillary urothelial carcinoma and applies to multiple occurrences of /2 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Rule 8 applies to 8131/3 and 8120/3. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
