| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240067 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Kidney: Is a clinical diagnosis of a right kidney lesion with a “75% chance of malignancy” reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm. The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance. No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case. Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant? |
If you are unable to follow up with the physician, do not report this case until or unless more information becomes available. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240070 | Reportability/Histology: Does Cancer Pathology Coding Histology And Registration Terminology (Cancer PathCHART) determine if the histology is reportable or do we have to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheet? |
The CPC ICD-O-3 Site Morphology Validation Lists (SMVLs) designate all tumor site-morphology combinations that are either valid or impossible as determined for the sites reviewed by the Cancer PathCHART initiative. These lists provide information on the Validity Status of specific tumor site and morphology combinations, similar to the way the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation List used to. However, the CPC SMVLs do not include information on the reportability of specific tumor site and morphology combinations. For tumor reportability, you will continue to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheets posted to the NAACCR ICD-O-3 Coding Updates website: https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/, and the most recent SEER Manual and federal, state, local, and other standard setters' reportability requirements. |
2024 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240074 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient had a 2023 nasopharyngeal mass biopsy showing “Nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type.” The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) do not include an H Rule that instructs us how to code histology when there are two subtypes/variants present for a head and neck primary, nor does the STR define undifferentiated carcinoma as a subtype/variant for 8072. The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors states non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma (non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common subtype for nasopharyngeal ca, but that non-keratinizing can be subdivided into undifferentiated and differentiated subtypes. Should histology be 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma) or 8072 (non-keratinizing SCC)? |
Assign histology as 8072 for non-keratinizing SCC, undifferentiated subtype. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition assigns 8072/3 to squamous cell carcinoma, non-keratinizing, NOS in the nasopharynx. As the tumor exhibits a variety of architectural patterns and appearances histologically, they can be further classified as undifferentiated or differentiated subtypes. These subtypes do not change the histology code. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240047 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is “high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm” of the endometrium reportable? See Discussion. |
The patient had a 2023 endometrial polypectomy and curettage with final diagnosis of “at least serous intraepithelial neoplasia arising in association with an endometrial polyp.” Diagnosis comment states, “There are multiple tissue fragments with highly atypical glandular lining consistent with a high-grade serous neoplasm. There are focal areas which are suspicious, but not conclusive, for stromal invasion.” Subsequent hysterectomy and BSO showed no residual carcinoma. According to previous SINQ 20210043, serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (STIN) is reportable when stated to be high grade. Does the same logic apply to a similar neoplasm in the endometrium and/or endometrial polyp? |
Report high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm of the endometrium. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240030 | Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that overlaps skin and the vermillion border reportable when the percent of overlap is unknown? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20031110 addresses an overlapping lip lesion between skin and the vermillion border. We were instructed to go with area of greatest involvement. Case would be reportable if >50% of tumor was on the vermillion border and site would be coded to vermillion border (C00._). Often times percentage of involvement is not stated and all that is known is that the lesion overlaps skin and mucosa. |
Determine whether the lesion is on the mucosa or skin based on the pathology report, history and physical, and operative notes when available. The gross description of the pathology report should include information to help in determining whether the site of origin is epithelium (skin) or mucosa (lip). Do not report the case when the site of origin cannot be determined between a reportable site and non-reportable site for this histology. This includes situations where the site of origin or the site with the greatest involvement is undetermined. In this case, you cannot confirm reportability. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240020 | Histology/Behavior: There are currently no codes available on the ICD-10-CM casefinding list for several of the site-specific intraepithelial neoplasias (8077/2). Will there be an update with additional codes for these sites that currently do not have codes to enable casefinding for these? See the table below.
|
Many of these terms are not specified in the codes and definitions in ICD-10-CM. This is because ICD-10-CM does not have the same granularity as ICD-O-3.2. There are a few sites where intraepithelial neoplasia II and/or III are mentioned. Even though ICD-O-3.2 classifies these as /2 (in-situ), for the intraepithelial neoplasia that are listed in ICD-10-CM, Grade II is designated as benign, while Grade III is designated as in-situ. It is not clear if medical coding will change the Grade II to an in-situ code. All the in-situ codes (except cervix) are included in the casefinding list. Grade III is included with the in-situ codes; however, there is no guarantee that medical coders will code them as in situ. High grades are coded as in-situ in ICD-10-CM. For those where there is no specific intraepithelial neoplasia code, the benign codes will cover any benign lesion for that site. This would make for a lot of review using the codes for casefinding. Most of the benign codes were removed from the casefinding list a couple of years ago to make it more manageable. Use the casefinding list as a guide for these neoplasias. It is not the most definitive source due to the lack of specificity of ICD-10-CM. It is not possible to map every single histology to a specific code. It is also not known how medical coders across the U.S. are coding these neoplasias. For that reason, pathology should remain the foremost casefinding resource used. The casefinding team will need to review the prepared list below and determine what codes to add. Any updates will be incorporated in the FY2025 updates (October 2024.)
|
2024 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240007 | Histology--Brain and CNS: Provide clarification about the priority order of histology coding sources and an explanation of why the annotated histology lists are not the same as the WHO IARC ICD-O-3.2 Excel Table (adopted 1/1/2021). See Discussion. |
We have had multiple users unable to find the applicable histology in the ICD-O-3.2 (i.e., the site-specific table did not include the histology) because they were using the annotated histology list and could not find the complete list of related terms or synonyms for the histology code. For example, the ICD-O-3.2 lists Medulloblastoma, SHH-activated, NOS as a related term for 9471/3, but many users were unable to find this valid histology because they were using the annotated histology list, not the ICD-O-3.2. |
The NAACCR Annotated Histology List (AL) serves as an aid to registry software vendors for implementing annual histology changes. This file has been maintained by the Registry Plus team at CDC’s NPCR for several years and reflects modifications to ICD-O-3 implemented by North American cancer registries over time. Although this list is reviewed multiple times prior to posting, there is no guarantee of 100% accuracy. As such, the AL is not a substitute for referring to various standard-setter documents and implementation guidelines. In this instance, Medulloblastoma Desmoplastic SHH-activated and TP53-wildtype 9471 is across several resources: the Solid Tumor Rules, Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves module in Table 3, column 3 as a subtype/variant of Medulloblastoma NOS 9470; in the CNS WHO 5th Edition BB; and in the WHO IARC ICD-O-3.2 posted to ICD O 3 Coding Updates (naaccr.org). Although the exact related term of Medulloblastoma, SHH-activated, NOS is not listed, the NAACCR Implementation Guidelines for 2024 recommend checking the 2024 ICD-O-3 Update Table 1 or 2 to determine if the histology is listed. If the histology is not included in the update, then review ICD-O-3.2 and/or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database and/or Solid Tumor Rules (MP/H). The Cancer PathCHART initiative has been undertaken to address gaps such as this between standard setting resources. Having all the standard histology coding resources included in a single all-inclusive database enables alignment of morphology codes & terms included in the CPC*SMVL (Cancer PathCHART Site-Morphology Validation List), Solid Tumors Rules, ICD-O-3 Annual Updates, NAACCR Annotated Histology List as well as the WHO 5th edition Blue Books. Please see Cancer PathCHART - Tumor Site-Morphology Surveillance Standards Initiative for more information on the Cancer PathCHART initiative, and more specifically, see Transitioning the Annotated Histology List to Cancer PathCHART (naaccr.org). |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240004 | Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is a malignant spindle cell neoplasm consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 and later, after thorough immunohistochemical work-up? See Discussion. |
Appendix E1 in both the 2023 and 2024 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) lists these malignant spindle cell neoplasms, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma, as reportable when other tumors have been ruled out with immunohistochemistry. This contradicts both SINQ 20190102 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) general instructions indicating ambiguous terminology (e.g., “consistent with”) cannot be used to code the more specific histology when there is a NOS (malignant spindle cell neoplasm, 8004/3) and a more specific (malignant atypical fibroxanthoma, 8830/3) histology. These tumors are typically diagnosed and treated in dermatology offices, so further chart review or confirmation by a physician is not possible for central registries. As non-melanoma skin primaries are included in the Other Sites schema, and this schema was updated for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, which instruction applies to 2023+ diagnoses? Should these continue to be collected per Appendix E1 despite the conflict with the STR Manual and SINQ? If these are reportable, should the SINQ and STR Manual be updated to reflect this? Or should these be non-reportable per the STR Manual and SINQ? |
Report malignant spindle cell neoplasms consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma as directed by Appendix E.1 of the 2023 and 2024 versions of the SEER Manual using 8830/3 (fibroxanthoma, malignant). We will update the answer in SINQ 20190102. While the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules address coding an NOS and specific histology sub-type/variant, this situation is not specifically addressed. We will also review the rules. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20250020 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Vulva: Can instructions and descriptions from registry manuals be used to determine p16 status for the human papillomavirus (HPV)-related histology codes in the Solid Tumor Rules (STR)? Does it have to state that p16 is “positive” or “over-expressed” only? See Discussion. |
The STR states that p16 can be used to code HPV-associated and HPV-independent histologies for selected sites depending on diagnosis year but contains no instructions about how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. These are often stated in various ways in our area, depending on the pathology lab and different pathologists. The SSDI Manual and SEER Coding and Staging Manual each have some instructions and code definitions for p16, including: - Code 0 for p16 expression of weak intensity or limited distribution - Code 0: p16 Negative; Nonreactive - Code 1: p16 Positive; Diffuse, Strong reactivity - IHC for p16 expression is a surrogate marker for HPV infection Example: 2023 squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva, partial vulvectomy; pathology states vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia-3, p16 immunohistochemistry demonstrates block-like expression, which supports the diagnosis. The next path report states invasive squamous cell carcinoma, stain for p16 is strong and diffuse in the lesion, supporting the above diagnosis. Neither path report specifically states "HPV-related," so are p16 "expression" and "strong and diffuse" staining enough to code the histology as 8085/3 for this case? |
Refer to the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocols to determine how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. Per the Vulva CAP Protocol, p16 positive is defined as diffuse or block-like expression. Since the pathology report states "block-like expression," code the histology as 8085/3 (invasive squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated). |
2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20250007 | Reportability/Behavior: Our registry collects some borderline (behavior /1) cases that are not reportable to SEER or any other standard setters. Can we assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases? |
Do not assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases unless you have a way to flag them so that they are not reported to the standard setters as in situ cases. Work with your state central registry to ensure that these cases are not unintentionally included in state case submission. |
2025 |
Home
