Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250019 | SEER Manual/Tumor Size Summary--Breast: Can the size of a non-mass enhancement (NME) be used if it represents the largest size within the appropriate time frame to code tumor size summary when neoadjuvant therapy is administered? Clinical and pathologic tumor sizes are no longer collected for 2024 and 2025 cases. See Discussion. |
In the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2023, under clinical tumor size (page 115, item #12), it states: “For breast tumors, clinical size may be recorded based on the size of a non-mass enhancement (NME). NME is defined as an enhancing abnormality that is not associated with the three-dimensional volume of a mass, shape, and outlining, and it is separate from Background Parenchymal Enhancement (BPE).” This guidance does not appear to have been carried forward into the Tumor Size Summary coding instructions. |
Do not use the NME size from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to code tumor size when both tumor size and NME size are stated or if NME is the only size available. The size of the solid tumor mass takes priority over the size of the NME when provided separately and the NME is larger. The American College of Radiology, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) defines NME as an area of enhancement on MRI that does not belong to a 3D mass or have distinct features of a mass. It is a separate descriptor from size that includes modifiers describing enhancement patterns with a specific MRI pattern. |
2025 |
|
|
20250012 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded and which H Rule applies for a lung adenocarcinoma when the greatest percentage of the adenocarcinoma is stated to be, "solid; complex glands (cribriform and fused glands) (50%)"? See Discussion. |
In 01/2023, right lower lobectomy final diagnosis proved a single adenocarcinoma tumor with the histological patterns described as acinar (20%), papillary (30%) and solid; complex glands (cribriform and fused glands) (50%). There is no H Rule applicable to a complex glandular pattern adenocarcinoma. Is this equivalent to a solid predominant adenocarcinoma (8230) per Rule H7? Or is the predominant adenocarcinoma a mixed subtype coded as 8255 per Rule H9? |
Histology code 8255/3 best identifies this histology. Complex glands in lung tumors are often associated with a poor prognosis and represent a high-grade pattern in lung cancer grading systems. This histology is not currently recognized as a variant by WHO. |
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 | |
|
|
20250003 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Fallopian Tube: How is histology coded for a high-grade serous carcinoma with admixed yolk sac tumor of the right fallopian tube? See Discussion. |
There was a single right fallopian tube tumor with two distinct morphologies. The diagnosis comment states, “The combined morphologic and immunohistochemical features are best classified as primary fallopian tube high grade serous carcinoma with a somatically derived yolk sac tumor.” |
Assign high-grade serous carcinoma of the fallopian tube (8461/3). There is currently no code to capture this rare mixed histology. Yolk sac tumors rarely occur in the fallopian tubes of postmenopausal patients and are associated with poor outcome. It is important to document the findings in the appropriate text field. | 2025 |
|
|
20250009 | Sequence Number--Central/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a hematolymphoid disease included in the sequencing if it was not reportable at the time of diagnosis? |
Do not include the disease in the sequencing if the original hematolymphoid disease was not reportable at time of diagnosis.
The 2025 SEER Manual Sequence Number--Central Coding Instruction 1.a advises: A ‘reportable’ primary refers to the site/histology/behavior of the tumor and the years when reporting was required. Review of the reportability requirements in effect during the diagnosis year will be needed. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250029 | EOD 2018/EOD Regional Nodes--Oropharynx: Is code 550 missing “< equal to 6 cm” in the data item EOD Regional Nodes for Oropharynx HPV-Associated, Version 9? Otherwise, bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes with extranodal extension (ENE) that are >6 cm could fit into 550 OR 650. |
Code 550 is missing “< equal to 6 cm.” In addition, code 650 should include ipsilateral lymph nodes as well. Revised codes: Code 550 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, < equal to 6 cm WITH clinical evidence of ENE Code 650 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Ipsilateral, Bilateral or Contralateral lymph nodes > 6 cm WITH or WITHOUT clinical evidence of ENE These changes will be implemented in Version 3.4 (October 2026). We apologize for the error. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250030 | First Course of Therapy/Hormone Therapy--Meningioma: Should Sandostatin be coded as treatment for a Grade 1 meningioma? Patient had surgery and was somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2) positive by immunohistochemistry. |
Code Sandostatin (octreotide acetate) as hormonal therapy when given including: · SSTR 2 positive meningioma (NCCN, 2025: smaller studies support the use of targeted therapy including somatostatin) · Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (NCCN, 2025: Tumor control: antitumor effect is supported by studies for well-differentiated G1/G2 gastro-entero-pancreatic NET. In lung/thymic NET, somatostatin analogues may be considered if metastatic or SSTR positive). The SEER*Rx entry for Octreotide Acetate was updated as studies showed somatostatin analogs may shrink tumors or inhibit further growth. |
2025 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20250031 | SEER Manual/Reportability/Histology: Is severe dysplasia reportable? This is commonly listed as a synonym for high grade dysplasia. Is this term "severe dysplasia" reportable in the sites where high grade dysplasia is reportable? This is listed as a synonym, but it is not clear. See Discussion.
|
We are seeing cases on this in head and neck. The College of American Pathologists Oral Cancer Protocol is showing this as keratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ) and nonkeratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ). SINQ Question 20230047 shows it as reportable for head and neck. |
Report severe dysplasia for selected sites. Not all high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia are reportable. Refer to the list of examples in the SEER Manual Reportability Section and Appendix E, Reportable and Non-reportable Examples. Check also for other standard setters, state, and local reportability requirements. High grade dysplasia, severe dysplasia, and carcinoma in situ are equivalent terms with behavior /2. Refer to ICD-O, WHO Classification of Tumors, and the SEER Solid Tumor Rules for preferred histology terms and codes. For example, WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition, states carcinoma in situ in the oral cavity is synonymous with severe dysplasia though it is not a recommended term. |
2025 |
|
|
20250018 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are histology and behavior coded when the Integrated Diagnosis is "Meningioma, WHO Grade 2," and the Histological Classification is "Meningioma with elevated mitotic activity, hypercellularity, necrosis, and sheeting architecture?" See Discussion. |
We are increasingly seeing pathologists use this terminology to describe WHO G2 meningiomas, but the histology term "Atypical meningioma" is not being used, and a more specific "Histological Classification" of other WHO Grade 2 meningiomas (i.e., chordoid or clear cell meningioma) is not given. Can the combination of meningioma, WHO Grade 2 plus the histological classification listing multiple features of an atypical meningioma be used to code morphology to 9539/1? Or is this just a meningioma, NOS 9530/0 despite the WHO Grade 2 classification? |
Code meningioma, NOS (9530/0) based on the integrated diagnosis and histological classification. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, states that brain invasion is a criterion for the diagnosis of CNS WHO grade 2 meningioma, and there is no statement of brain invasion, atypical meningioma, or other WHO grade 2 lesions. WHO has not proposed behavior codes based on WHO grade alone. |
2025 |
An official website of the United States government
