| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240049 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Breast: When are pre-operative therapies given as part of a clinical trial coded as neoadjuvant treatment versus limited systemic exposure in the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item? See Discussion. |
The SEER Manual seems to give somewhat conflicting instructions for clinical trial therapies under the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item. One section states that limited systemic therapy may occur in clinical trials to impact the biology of a cancer, but is not a full course of neoadjuvant therapy with the intent to impact extent of surgical resection or other outcomes (organ preservation, function or quality of life); do not code as neoadjuvant therapy for the purposes of this data item. Then another section states for purposes of this data item, the criteria for neoadjuvant therapy include that treatment must follow recommended guidelines for the type and duration of treatment for that particular cancer site and/or histology, and that neoadjuvant therapy may be given as part of a clinical trial. For example, a patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, 6 cm in size; treatment planning conference recommended neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The patient elected to participate in a clinical trial and was assigned to a group given the antibody drug conjugate datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) plus durvalumab for 12 weeks. There was no physician documentation of intent or expected outcomes, nor yC staging or statement of clinical response. Post-therapy imaging showed no residual mass, and post-therapy mastectomy path report showed only residual ductal carcinoma in situ, stating "Treatment Effect (after neoadjuvant): Residual Cancer Burden - pCR, In the breast - complete response." The medical oncologist stated post-therapy stage was ypTis ypN0 cM0. The trial drugs this patient were given do not appear to be approved or standard neoadjuvant/pre-operative drugs in SEER*Rx or NCCN guidelines for this type of cancer; however, the duration of treatment was fairly substantial, and although we don't have clear documentation from physicians as recommended in the SEER manual (which is usually not stated, in our experience), it seems like they may be considering it as neoadjuvant therapy. How should the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item be coded for cases like this? What is the best way to differentiate between clinical trial therapies that are "limited systemic exposure" (code 3) versus true neoadjuvant therapy (code 1)? |
When pre-operative therapies are given as part of a clinical trial, code as neoadjuvant treatment in the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item when the intent is neoadjuvant and/or when surgical resection follows the clinical trial therapies. In the example, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was recommended in the treatment planning and the patient had the planned resection after neoadjuvant treatment. The treatment effect outcome is based on imaging that reported no mass and as documented by the physician, pathologist in this case as complete response to the neoadjuvant therapy based on the resection. Use code 3 (limited systemic exposure) when treatment does not meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy in the data item, Neoadjuvant Therapy. Limited exposure occurs when the patient receives some therapy prior to surgical resection, but the treatment is not enough to qualify for a full course of neoadjuvant therapy with the intent to impact extent of surgical resection or other outcomes. While this type of treatment may given as part of a clinical trial, it mostly refers to short term treatments such as hormone therapy. When neoadjuvant therapy is given prior to surgical resection that is planned (intended) or performed to improve outcomes, use Code 1 or 2. Because a clinical trial is a type of research study that tests new methods of screening, prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of a disease, the treatment regimens likely will not be incorporated in recommended guidelines until all phases of the trial are completed and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. ClinicalTrials.gov is available to learn more about clinical studies around the world. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240023 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Penis: Why is warty carcinoma listed in Other Sites, Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as 8051 when the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003 indicate the correct histology is 8054 for this neoplasm? See Discussion. |
The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003. However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not. Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003? |
Assign histology code 8054/3 for warty carcinoma. Assign 8051/3 for verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma cuniulatum. The WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition (2022) revised the terminology for squamous cell carcinoma groupings from "non-HPV-related" to "HPV-independent" and from "HPV-related to "HPV-associated". Warty carcinoma is defined as a "morphologically distinct HPV-associated verruciform neoplasm that shares histological features with a giant condyloma but has definitive cytological atypia and a malignant infiltrative architecture." Verrucous carcinoma (including carcinoma cuniculatum) is defined as an HPV-independent squamous cell carcinoma, and is correctly coded to 8051/3. The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 23, Penis and Scrotum Histologies will be updated to reflect this revised terminology and coding. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240040 | First course treatment--Kidney: How should the different treatment fields be coded if surgery is planned but cancelled due to patient noncompliance, then the tumor is treated with ablation, and eventually surgery is given due to residual disease? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed in July 2022 with biopsy confirmed left kidney renal cell carcinoma. Initially, partial nephrectomy was planned for February 2023 but canceled at the last moment due to the patient’s “history of narcotic use.” The details of that cancellation were otherwise unclear. It appears the treatment plan was changed due to patient non-compliance. Patient then had cryoablation of the tumor in May of 2023. Subsequent imaging in October found residual tumor, but no disease progression was noted. Again, additional ablation was offered but patient decided on surgical treatment which did not occur until December 2023. Is the cryoablation second course due to a change of plan if there is no disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure? If the cryoablation is first course treatment, then would the partial resection also be first course treatment because it was documented as the treatment plan? |
The treatment with cryoablation is second course. Once the initial treatment plan is changed, everything after the change is no longer first course of treatment. If the cryoablation was not mentioned as part of the original treatment plan, it is second course. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240073 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs), Rule M6, says to abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor. Does that 60-day interval apply to the original diagnosis date, or to the latest recurrence? See Discussion. |
10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion). 12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas). 4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis. Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior? SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6? |
Abstract a single primary for this scenario based on Urinary Sites STRs. 10/2017 and 12/2017 bladder diagnoses: Single primary (Rule M15: Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions). This interval is not indicative of recurrence as there is no clinically disease free period on follow-up. Use the Multiple Primary Rules as written to determine whether a subsequent tumor is a new primary or a recurrence as stated in the General Instructions. The only exception is when a pathologist compares slides from the subsequent tumor to the “original” tumor and documents the subsequent tumor is a recurrence of the previous primary. Never code multiple primaries based only on a physician’s statement of “recurrence” or “recurrent.” 12/2017 (bladder) and 4/2018 diagnoses (renal pelvis): Single primary (Rule M11: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs; behavior is irrelevant.) |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240035 | Solid Tumor Rules--Urinary: The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules refers to the same row in Table 3. Should the example say Table 2 since Table 3 is non-reportable urinary tumors. See Discussion. |
Rule M15 Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Note: The same row means the tumors are • The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR • One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR • A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR • A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3. |
The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules should refer to Table 2. We will update this in the next revision of the Rules. |
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240058 | Summary Stage 2018--Ovary: What is the summary stage for an ovarian primary in 2024, in which the ovary capsule was ruptured with surgical spill? See Discussion. |
In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology. Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018. |
Code SEER Summary Stage 2018 to Localized, Code 1. Per consult with AJCC and noted in the Primary Peritoneal Chapter in AJCC 8th edition, an intraoperative rupture is coded as a surgical spill. A capsule rupture is when the capsule ruptures prior to the surgery (Summary Stage Regional, Code 2). |
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240043 | Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” and, therefore, non-reportable, or is this a reportable non-colorectal high grade dysplasia? See Discussion. |
The 2022 ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines indicate “Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” is 8263/2 and is not SEER reportable. However, the 2024 SEER Manual and clarification from recent SINQs (20240021 and 20240025) confirm high grade dysplasia in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine is reportable (8148/2). Which reportability reference applies to a diagnosis of a tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia in non-colorectal sites? |
A diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum is not equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade.” Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade (8263/2) is not reportable as of 2022. High grade dysplasia (glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III) is reportable in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine (8148/2). |
2024 |
Home
