Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170036 | Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion. |
Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows: Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7 Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7 Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8 Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10 Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores. The prostate-related fields include: Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy |
When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields. Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1 Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2 Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2 Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3 Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3 |
2017 |
|
|
20130027 | Reportability--Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix now reportable? See Discussion. |
The terminology for carcinoid tumors has changed. The current terminology used is "neuroendocrine tumor." Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix non-reportable because carcinoid, NOS of the appendix has a borderline behavior code [8240/1]? When the histology/behavior codes for the term "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" became 8240/3, did SEER intend this change to also apply to appendix primaries? If so, for which diagnosis year did this change go into effect? |
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix are reportable because these tumors have a morphology code 8240/3 per the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. However, per the ICD-O-3, carcinoid tumors of the appendix have a behavior code of /1 [borderline]. The terminology of neuroendocrine tumors is evolving and current thinking at the international level is that carcinoid/WD NET of appendix is reportable. However, reportability in the United States is based on ICD-O-3. The histology code for "Carcinoid of appendix" is 8240/1; the histology code for a carcinoids of all other primary sites is 8240/3. Until the United States adopts the proposed changes for ICD-O-3, reportability of appendix cases is as follows:
|
2013 |
|
|
20140002 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion. | SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix. | Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.
When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case. |
2014 |
|
|
20150016 | Reportability--Stomach: Is a well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the stomach reportable? |
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of the stomach is reportable. The WHO classification of digestive system tumors uses the term NET G1 (grade 1) as a synonym for carcinoid and well-differentiated NET, 8240/3. |
2015 | |
|
|
20240013 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Testis: Can a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) be added to the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion. |
We included this histology in SEER Workshop Case 12 and the histology coding accuracy was less than 40%. From emails we received, it is clear that registrars are unaware that the "somatic type malignancy" can vary but code 9084 applies when the diagnosis is teratoma WITH any non-germ cell tumor component. It may be helpful to add a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) to the Solid Tumor Manual. |
We will add the same definition for teratoma with malignant transformation found in the ovary table: 9084/3 Teratoma with malignant transformation when a malignant (/3) histology arises in a benign teratoma. Teratoma with malignant transformation and teratoma with somatic-type malignancy are synonoyms. The term teratoma with somatic-type malignancy is outdated and no longer recommended. |
2024 |
|
|
20220007 | Histology: Is there any guidance on using STRATA Oncology testing (molecular tumor profiling tests), such as StrataNGS and StrataEXP, to code SSDIs, histology, etc? I do not see anything in STR, SEER Program Manual, SINQ, or CAnswerForum. We are seeing the testing with our 2021 paths. |
We recommend that you do not use information from these molecular tumor profiling tests until they become a standard diagnostic tool. If/when that happens, we will add information to the various manuals. |
2022 | |
|
|
20051129 | Reportability/Behavior--Thyroid: Does the term "invasion" indicate the presence of a malignant tumor? See Discussion. | Left thyroid lobectomy showed microfollicular neoplasm with evidence of minimal invasion. Micro portion of path report stated, "The capsular contour is focally distorted by a finger of the microfollicular nodule which appears to penetrate into the adjacent capsular and thyroid tissue." | We recommend that you contact the pathologist for further information. If no further information is available, do not accession this case based on the information provided. There is no definitive statement of malignancy. If the case was sent to a consultant, there may be another opinion available. If there is information in the record, or the treating physician can be contacted, find out whether the tumor was benign or malignant and whether there was any further treatment. According to our pathologist consultant, based only on the information above and nothing else, do not report since there is no diagnosis of malignancy. |
2005 |
|
|
20170066 | 2016 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Corpus Uteri: Is the primary site C541 (endometrium) or C543 (uterine fundus) when the histology states endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, but tumor site states fundus? See Discussion. |
Pathology--Final description: Uterus, cervix, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries, total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: Endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, well differentiated, FIGO 1/3. Myometrial invasion: focal myometrial invasion (30% of myometrium) Tumor size: 2 x2 cm Tumor site: Fundus, exophytic/polypoid lesion Gross description: The 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in diameter triangular endometrium is tan-red and smooth with a 2.0 x 2.0 cm tan-pink, exophytic fundic mass which extends on to both anterior and posterior aspects, 4.1 cm from the os. |
We recommend coding endometrium, C541, as the primary site for this case. While coding to fundus would not be incorrect, according to our expert pathologist consultant, "it is more appropriate in a setting in which the region of the uterus is of importance, e.g. with a myoma or a myosarcoma, or if the endometrioid carcinoma were NOT in the endometrium but arising in a focus of adenomyosis within the fundic myometrium." |
2017 |
|
|
20000277 | Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion. | Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant. | We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. |
2000 |
|
|
20200015 | Tumor Size--Clinical--Breast: Does information from any type of biopsy take precedence over an imaging report? See Discussion. |
For example, a patient has a 2.6 cm breast tumor on MRI; a core biopsy measuring 0.7 cm is positive for infiltrating duct carcinoma. Rule #1 states "Use the largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment." However, Rule #9 seems to imply that size from an "incisional biopsy" takes precedence over imaging, even though it is known to be less than the entire tumor in size. |
We do not recommend using the size from a core biopsy for clinical tumor size. A core biopsy does not necessarily obtain enough tissue to know the actual tumor size. Since there is imaging for this patient, it is preferable to record clinical tumor size from the imaging report in this case. The instructions will be clarified in the next revision of the SEER manual. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
