Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion. |
Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy. The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment. If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected? Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added? |
Answer updated September 2025 Per consultation with a male genital and urinary subject matter expert pathologist, if a patient with a previous diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma (or a subtype variant of 8140/3) of the prostate was treated with radiation and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT, a form of hormonal therapy), the following subsequent diagnoses are NOT a new primary.
For example, a patient is diagnosed with acinar adenocarcinoma and undergoes hormone therapy. Two years later, the patient is diagnosed with adenosquamous carcinoma. The adenosquamous carcinoma should be considered treatment-related and is not a new primary. |
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 |
|
|
20200057 | Histology--Lung: Is there a better code for SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms than 8000/3 that could be used especially given its aggressive nature? This term is not included in the Lung Solid Tumor Rules or ICD-O-3.1 and 3.2. See Discussion. |
Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32. |
Answer updated August 2025 Assign code 8044/3. WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, classifies SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm as Thoracic SMARCA4-deficient undifferentiated tumor (SMARCA4-UT). |
2020 |
|
|
20230018 | SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion. |
Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory). Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory? |
Answer updated April 2025 A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors. Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment. However, if a change to hormone therapy or immunotherapy is due to a change in the patient's ER, PR, or Her2 status, this could signify a new course of treatment. The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle. |
2023 |
|
|
20071028 | MP/H Rules--Lung: Why the term "nodule" is not included as an equivalent term along with tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm in the 2007 lung multiple primary rules? | Answer revised July 2008 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging. This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised. |
2007 | |
|
|
20210037 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date? |
Answer revised 3/31/2022 Do not report cases based only on the TI-RADS category. The most recent information from ACR on TI-RADS indicates that neither TI-RADS 4 nor TI-RADS 5 is clearly defined as malignancy. TI-RADS 4 is "moderately suspicious" and TI-RADS 5 is "highly suspicious" but they do not specify what they are suspicious for. We need more information to determine reportability. |
2021 | |
|
|
20081123 | Reportability--Brain: Is angiocentric glioma, WHO grade 1 of the right frontal lobe reportable? If so, how is histology to be coded? | Angiocentric glioma is reportable. The best histology code currently available is 9380/1 [glioma, NOS; uncertain behavior]. According to the WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumours, Angiocentric glioma has a behavior of /1. WHO defines it as an epilepsy-associated stable or slowly growing cerebral tumour primarily affecting children and young adults; histopathologicaly characterized by an angiocentric pattern of growth, monomorphous bipolar cells and features of ependymal differentiation. |
2008 | |
|
|
20150051 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is schwannoma of the extracranial part of a cranial nerve reportable? Some cranial nerves, like facial nerve, have intracranial and extracranial branches. |
An extracranial schwannoma is not reportable. The schwannoma must arise on the intracranial part of the nerve to be reportable. |
2015 | |
|
|
20210003 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Head & Neck: The instructions for Table 9 of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules instruct registrars to code the primary site to C479 (Autonomic nervous system) for paragangliomas that arise in the head and neck region, but the ICD-O-3.2 provides a site-associated code for most of these tumors (C754, Carotid body and C755, Paraganglion). Which primary site is correct? See Discussion. |
While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755. Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755. |
Always code primary site to the site of origin. Look for information about where the neoplasm originated. Primary site should always be coded to reflect the site of origin according to the medical opinion on the case. Always code the primary site based on where the tumor arose / site of origin. Site of origin may be indicated by terms such as "tumor arose from," "tumor originated in," or similar statements. Refer to ICD-O-3.2 and ICD-O-3 for topographty codes that are associated with specific histologies whenthe medical documentation does not specify the primary site. |
2021 |
|
|
20220025 | Reportability/Histology--Anal Canal: For cases diagnosed in 2021, is anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) II reportable? There is conflicting information regarding the reportability for AIN II. SINQ 20210048 says to report AIN II but the 2021 SEER Manual Appendix E states intraepithelial neoplasia (8077/2 and 8148/2) must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable. |
AIN II is reportable for 2021. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia. The wording in Appendix E of the 2021 SEER manual (must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable) was left over from earlier versions and is not correct for 2021 diagnoses. Follow the guidance in SINQ 20210048. |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
