Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20000527 | Radiation: Is "consolidated" radiation therapy coded as part of first course therapy when there is no documentation of "planned treatment" and the radiation is done 4 months after the initiation of treatment? |
Yes, "consolidation" treatment is part of a planned treatment regimen. A treatment regimen may consist of the four following phases: 1. Induction (remission induction) 2. CNS preventive therapy 3. Consolidation/intensification 4. Maintenance |
2000 | |
|
|
20061111 | Reportability/Behavior--Skin: Is an "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" with an ICDO-3 histology code of 8830 reportable with a behavior code of 3 or is it nonreportable with a behavior code of 1? |
Yes, "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" is reportable. The information in parentheses provides more detail and confirms a reportable malignancy. |
2006 | |
|
|
20200060 | First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion. |
Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease? |
Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items. |
2020 |
|
|
20250013 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Testis: How many primaries and what M Rule applies when metastatic seminoma is diagnosed greater than 40 years after a left testicular teratoma with yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with a left testis primary in the early 1980s that did not include a seminoma component per the information available. The slides were not available for review. In 2024, the patient was found to have a metastatic seminoma involving multiple pelvic lymph nodes and the prostate. The right testicular ultrasound was negative. The managing physician noted this was both a "relapsed seminoma" and a "Stage IIC seminoma." Should the new diagnosis of metastatic seminoma be accessioned as a new primary based on the histology differences? Or is this situation similar to SINQ 20160073 in which this is a single primary even though the metastases are a distinctly different histology? |
Without evidence of a new testicular tumor, record this as a single primary now with metastatic disease (seminoma). The seminoma may not have been identified in the original tumor and treatment was based on the histologies found. This allowed the seminoma to metastasize. |
2025 |
|
|
20160050 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion. |
The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014. |
WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.
For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.
|
2016 |
|
|
20160064 | Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate. |
WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ." So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. |
2016 | |
|
|
20170019 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a mixed germ cell tumor that also includes choriocarcinoma now that non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9065) and seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9085) are collapsed for analysis? See Discussion. |
The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085. |
While WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Urinary and Male Genital System does not include 9101/3, this code has not been made obsolete. Follow the 2007 MP/H rules and code histology to 9101/3 per Other sites rule H16, Table 2. |
2017 |
|
|
20190044 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Is the term phenotype equivalent to type, subtype, variant for the purpose of coding histology? See Discussion. |
In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual. Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype. Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype? |
While variant, type, and subtype can be used interchangeably according to the Solid Tumor Rules, SINQ 20170058 states that the Multiple Primaries/Histology (now Solid Tumor) Rules do not include coding phenotype. Code as invasive adenocarcinoma NOS (8140). |
2019 |
|
|
20220030 | Histology--Lung: Is it acceptable to code histology as 8042/3 for a 2020 lung primary when the pathology report states only "oat cell carcinoma?" See Discussion. |
In the old 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions section, oat cell carcinoma (8042) was listed as one of the obsolete terms that was no longer recognized for small cell carcinoma. That note is not in the current 2018 Solid Tumor Manual lung chapter, and ICDO-3.2 lists oat cell carcinoma as the preferred term for code 8042/3. Would rule H4, Note 2 apply -- only one histology present, if not listed in Table 3 use ICD-O and all updates, to code oat cell carcinoma as 8042/3? |
While oat cell carcinoma is an outdated term, if that is all the pathology report states, code histology as 8042/3. Yes, Rule H4 applies: the diagnosis was a single histology. H4 instructs you to refer to the solid tumor H table, and if the term is not found there, check ICD-O and ICD-O updates. All possible histologic types that could occur in the lung may not be included in the table. |
2022 |
|
|
20220033 | When coding the Covid testing results, does SEER have any guidance on whether or not at home tests fall within reportability? For instance, if a medical provider says pt tested positive on an at home test, do we record that? |
When you have information about home COVID tests, record this information. For example, if the home test was positive record as follows: COVID-19 rapid viral antigen test POS 08/09/2022 |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
