Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20240078 | Reportability/Histology--Lung: Are adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions on lung imaging reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
For example, a chest computed tomography showed multiple subsolid and ground glass pulmonary nodules measuring up to 6 mm; findings favored to reflect adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions. A literature search seems to indicate that adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions include atypical adenomatous hyperplasia through invasive adenocarcinomas. |
Do not report this case of "adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions" based on the information provided in the absence of a more specific diagnosis. Do not report until/unless a definitive diagnosis of malignancy is made. "Adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion" covers a continuum of lung neoplasms from preinvasive lesions (atypical adenomatous hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ) to invasive lesions (minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and invasive adenocarcinoma). Should additional information become available, report the case and assign the histology code if a more specific histology is confirmed later. Use text fields to record the details.
|
2024 |
|
|
20240071 | Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms/Multiple Primaries--Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Are essential thrombocytosis (ET) in 1998 and primary myelofibrosis in 2022 the same primary or is the 2022 diagnosis a new primary? See Discussion.
|
Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea. 11-17-2022 Blood smear: CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3 (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations). The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing: A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary. |
Answer updated September 2025: Abstract a single primary as primary myelofibrosis (9961/3). ET was not reportable in 1998. |
2024 |
|
|
20240066 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should histology be coded for a pathologic diagnosis of “Follicular lymphoma, diffuse pattern grade 3A of 3, equivalent to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (germinal center cell type)” when later referenced clinically as follicular lymphoma grade 3A? See Discussion. |
The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist. |
Assign histology as DLBCL (9680/3) as supported by the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition. It is consistent with how it would have been coded in the 4th edition. The Heme Manual and Database currently are based on the 4th edition. Physicians are using the 5th edition blue book, whereas the cancer registry field is not yet at this time. Regarding the Heme Manual and Database, this type of scenario is not covered because it is part of the 5th edition WHO Blue Book. The database cannot be updated until the 5th edition is approved for implementation (2026). |
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 |
|
|
20240008 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the term “diffuse” be added to Note 2 in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants, for the papillary glioneuronal tumor 9509/1? See Discussion. |
Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor." |
The correct term is diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor listed as a synonym in Column 2. We will add the term diffuse in Note 2, Column 1 with the 2025 updates. In the meantime, you can add "diffuse" to your pdf version until the update is published. |
2024 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20240044 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Esophagus: Should the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item be coded as 1 or 2 when the patient completes all but one cycle of the planned neoadjuvant therapy and the managing physician notes the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion. |
The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel) concurrent with radiation per the managing physician. The physician stated the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy; however, it was also noted that patient completed five cycles of chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia. The SEER Manual does not address how to code Neoadjuvant Therapy when the patient completed almost all the planned neoadjuvant therapy. It seems inappropriate to code Neoadjuvant Therapy as 2 (Started but not completed) simply because the patient did not have one cycle of chemotherapy but is otherwise felt to have completed neoadjuvant therapy per the managing physician. Does the managing physician’s statement of “completion” impact how this scenario is coded? |
Assign code 2, Neoadjuvant therapy started, but not completed OR unknown if completed, for the 2024 SEER Manual data item Neoadjuvant Therapy. Assign code 2 when neoadjuvant therapy was begun and the patient did not complete the full course of neoadjuvant therapy. See Coding Instruction #3 on page 230. The fact that the patient completed five cycles of the planned chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia is important information and should be abstracted correctly and documented via text data items. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
