| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230073 | First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Liver/Intrahepatic Bile Ducts: For a liver/intrahepatic bile duct primary, is an alcohol embolization the same thing as a percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI)? See Discussion. |
For C220-C221 primaries, Surgery of Primary Site includes code A150 for Alcohol tumor destruction (percutaneous ethanol injection/intratumoral injection of alcohol/alcohol ablation). The SEER and STORE manuals also indicate that alcohol embolization should be coded as Other Therapy, code 1. We are trying to determine whether alcohol embolization should be coded under Surgery of Primary Site or Other Therapy. |
Code alcohol ablation under Surgery of Primary Site 2023. Code alcohol embolization as Other Therapy when tumor embolization is performed using alcohol as the embolizing agent. Alcohol ablation, also known as an ultrasound-guided percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI); is treatment that involves injecting concentrated alcohol directly into the tumor. Embolization uses special techniques to close off blood flow by introducing special medications or using other techniques designed to block blood vessels. Types of embolization are arterial embolization as with alcohol (ethanol), chemoembolization, and radioembolization. Refer to the current SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual when assigning surgery and embolization procedures. |
2023 |
|
|
20230044 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Breast: What pathology report descriptions are permissible to use in coding the Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect data item? See Discussion. |
1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%? 2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used? For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions? |
1) Do not infer the percent of viable tumor if only percent of necrosis is provided. For the example, assign code 6 when Neoadjuvant therapy was completed and the treatment effect in the breast is stated only as “Present". 2) Do not use the residual cancer burden (RCB) score from the pathology report to code the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect field for breast cancer. We do not have a crosswalk from RCB to neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect. RCB index is an accurate and reliable tool to assess patient prognosis. RCB is estimated from routine pathologic sections of the primary breast tumor site and the regional lymph nodes after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy. The data item Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect records information on the primary tumor only. Document information in a text field in both examples. |
2023 |
|
|
20230021 | Histology--Soft Tissue: How is histology coded for malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement diagnosed on left shoulder excision? See Discussion. |
March 2022, left shoulder soft tissue mass excision shows a spindle cell tumor with outside consultation diagnosis of malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement. Diagnosis comments indicate the findings most closely resemble the spectrum of kinase-rearranged mesenchymal neoplasms, such as lipofibromatosis-like neural tumor. However, the expression of SOX10 and mature melanocytic markers is unusual, and does not exclude melanocytic differentiation. Should this be classified as a peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (9364) or as an "NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm (emerging)" (8990) if there is a NTRK gene rearrangement? |
NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm is a newly identified variant of sarcoma; however, WHO has not yet proposed a specific ICD-O code for this rare neoplasm. Code to spindle cell sarcoma (8801/3). WHO defines NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm as an emerging group of molecularly defined rare soft tissue tumors that span a wide group of morphologies and histological grades, and are most often characterized by a spindle cell phenotype among other characteristics. |
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 | |
|
|
20230031 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries and what M Rule applies to a 2022 diagnosis of right upper lobe non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) when the patient has a history acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020, followed by squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021? See Discussion. |
The patient was not synchronously diagnosed with multiple tumors, but three separate tumors with three different histologies were diagnosed at different times and no more specific histology was provided for the NSCLC. The timing rules do not apply to this case (the tumors were not greater than 3 years apart and they were not synchronously/simultaneously diagnosed). While NSCLC is a NOS histology for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, it is unclear if Rule M8 should apply because NSCLC is not listed in Table 3 (Table 3 is not an exhaustive list). In some situations, Rule M8 would apply if the tumors were different histologies and one of the histologies was not listed in the Table. Does that logic still apply if one of the tumors is NSCLC? If NSCLC is excluded from Rule M8, is Rule M14 the appropriate M Rule for the 2022 NSCLC diagnosis? |
The patient's previous acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020 and squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021 were correctly abstracted as two primaries per rule M8 as they are in different rows in Table 3. The NSCLC, RUL (8046) diagnosed in 2022 would not be abstracted as a third primary because NSCLC is a broad category which includes all histologies in Table 3 (except for small cell carcinoma/neuroendocrine tumors (NET Tumors) 8041 and all subtypes), and because it was diagnosed less than 3 years after the 2021 squamous cell carcinoma, RML (8070). |
2023 |
|
|
20230080 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for low grade glioma? See Discussion. |
Patient has a 3 cm tumor in the temporal lobe of the brain. This was noted on MRI 12/2022. The radiologist states this is a low-grade glioma and recommends following with routine scans. No pathology or resection performed or planned. Patient has been followed with imaging every six months with stable disease. Low grade glioma is not currently listed in ICD-O-3.2 or the current Solid Tumor Rules. What histology should be assigned to the case? |
Assign 9380/1 for low grade glioma diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward and for low grade glioma diagnosed prior to 1/1/2018 assign code 8000/1 on the advice of our expert neuropathologists. The site/type combination of C71 _ and 9380/1 will flag histology/site/behavior edits which should be overridden. Low grade glioma is an umbrella term or non-specific diagnosis, primarily seen on radiologic reports such as CT scans and MRIs. Often, the patient is actively followed with scans and surgical intervention delayed or not recommended. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, does not recognize this term and indicates that tissue diagnosis (including genetic testing) is needed to provide a specific diagnosis. Since biopsy of these “neoplasms” is not routinely done, a definitive diagnosis is not available. Literature searches yielded conflicting information with some stating low grade gliomas are malignant with an indolent clinical course while others felt they were benign. Until such time as WHO proposes a code for this neoplasm, our expert neuropathologists recommend coding glioma, NOS with borderline behavior 9380/1. |
2023 |
|
|
20230039 | Histology/Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms--AML: What is the histology code for Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML) with monocytic differentiation, 9891/3: acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia or 9867/3: Acute myelomonocytic leukemia? |
Code AML with monocytic differentiation as acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (9861/3) per consultation with our expert hematopathologist. Acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia (9891/3) and acute myelomonocytic leukemia (9867/3) are distinct entities according to the WHO. "AML with monocytic differentiation" is a descriptive diagnosis, whereas, "Acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia" are specific diagnoses. In the WHO Classification of Tumours, Central nervous system tumours (4th Ed) in 2016, WHO began integrating information on molecular alterations that provide significant prognostic implications and/or a therapeutic target into the histology code/term itself. As a result it is also important to look at the molecular testing because acute myeloid leukemias can have different molecular mutations that could result in coding to a different histology code. In this case, there was no other information regarding additional immunophenotyping, so that is why AML, NOS was assigned. Acute myeloid leukemia with monocytic differentiation has been added to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database as an alternate name for 9861/3. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230046 | Reportability/Histology--Tongue: Is high grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue reportable; and is it the same as carcinoma in situ (CIS), code 8077/2? |
High grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue is reportable as of 2021 and later as 8077/2. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230003 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable. Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
We will update SINQ 20180104. |
2023 |
|
|
20230053 | Reportability/Histology--Ovary/Testis: Is serous borderline tumor-micropapillary variant (8460/2) of the ovary or testis reportable? If so, what dates are applicable to the reportability changes? See Discussion. |
Serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant (8460/2, C569) was included in the ICD-O-3 Behavior Code/term updates effective 1/1/2018 but marked as Not Reportable for 2018. There have been multiple additional updates to the ICD-O but no further clarification as to the reportability of this histology. ICD-O-3.2 currently lists serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant (C569) as 8460/2 with no mention of reportability and no information provided in Includes/Excludes. SINQ 20220032 instructs capturing this histology as reportable when diagnosed 1/1/2021 or later and occurring in the testis. The answer indicates this is reportable due to the /2 behavior code in ICD-O-3.2, but it does not specify that it is limited to specific sites. Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant reportable for ovary? If so, what dates apply? Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant of the testis diagnosed after 1/1/2021 reportable? |
Do not report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the ovary (8460/2, C569) as borderline ovarian tumors are not reportable. This applies to cases 2018 and later. Do report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the testis as stated in SINQ 20220032. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later. |
2023 |
Home
