Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150034 | MP/H/Histology/neuroendocrine : How should the following histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation be coded?
1. Bladder - Invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
2. Nasopharnyx - Undifferentiated nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
3. Ductal carcinoma in situ (with neuroendocrine features) cribriform and solid patterns
See discussion. |
We are starting to see more specific histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation. How are we to deal with these histologies and will this be addressed in the revised MP/H rules? |
The term neuroendocrine is often included with other histologies and usually means that neuroendocrine cells are present but not neuroendocrine tumor.
1. If the neuroendocrine cells are stated to be either small cell or large cell, code that histology; however, neuroendocrine, NOS mixed with urothelial does not have an applicable mixed code. Code histology to 8120.
2. Code histology to squamous cell carcinoma, nonkeratinizing, NOS (8072/3). The neuroendocrine component is not specified as either small cell or large cell.
3. Code to 8523/2 per MP/H Rule H6 as intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma present.
Note that while neuroendocrine differentiation can be identified, it seems to have no prognostic implications. We have consulted with our site specific Subject Matter Experts on how best to capture neuroendocrine, NOS when combined with other histologies. These instructions will be included in the revision of the MP/H rules including the wording of MP/H breast rule H6. |
2015 |
|
|
20200072 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when there are multiple synchronous/non-contiguous tumors when one tumor is metaplastic carcinoma (with carcinoma No Special Type (NST) or lobular carcinoma) and another tumor is strictly carcinoma, NST? See Discussion. |
Is an M rule needed to address multiple tumors and Note 2 in Table 3? Does Note 2 in Table 3 apply when multiple tumors exist and one tumor contains only ductal carcinoma? The M Rules currently confirm that a metaplastic carcinoma (whether it is involved with ductal or lobular) and a separate ductal carcinoma are separate primaries because these histologies are on different rows in Table 3 (separate primaries per M14). There is no specific rule regarding metaplastic carcinomas in the Multiple Tumors (M Rules) module, so presumably, the presence of a separate ductal carcinoma is not lumped into Note 2 in Table 3 for metaplastic carcinoma. However, the note is confusing when there are multiple tumors involved because it appears to the registrars there are two options for coding the histology. To some registrars, the rules indicate it does not matter if the tumor is predominantly ductal carcinoma as long as some percentage of metaplastic carcinoma is present, code histology to metaplastic carcinoma. For other registrars, the presence of solely a ductal carcinoma in a second tumor is a separate primary from the separate metaplastic carcinoma. The M rules and Note 2 need to clarify this issue to promote consistency. This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The term "mixed" implies a single tumor comprised of metaplastic carcinoma or variants of metaplastic and duct or lobular. The metaplastic histology is coded regardless of whether it comprises the majority (greater than 50% of the tumor). M13 is the only rule specific to metaplastic and is in the single tumor module. This implies a single tumor with both histologies. When there are multiple tumors, one with metaplastic or a subtype/variant of metaplastic and another with a histology listed on a different row, continue to the Multiple Tumors module. M13 applies and there are two primaries. We will add "single tumor" to the note in Table 2 in the next update. |
2020 |
|
|
20170071 | Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion. |
We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings. Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes. Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor." |
The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic. |
2017 |
|
|
20100046 | Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. |
For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated. |
The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.
Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease. |
2010 |
|
|
20200074 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: What specific table(s) in the 2021 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules if any, apply to tumors of the lip? See Discussion. |
Lip has not been added to any of the site-specific histology tables, nor has any other instruction been provided for coding tumors in this site. Coding histology for lip primaries is difficult because registrars do not know where to look first. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate one should use the tables first, but then do not inform registrars what table to use for a lip primary (i.e., a specific table, any table, no table). This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The tables are based on WHO H&N chapters which do not include lip. There are inherent issues in determining reportability for lip primaries based on site and histology. The decision was made prior to release of the 2018 rules to exclude a histology table for lip. We are consulting both our dermatology and H&N pathology experts to explore adding a lip site-specific table to the rules. |
2020 |
|
|
20110015 | Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion. | Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218. |
The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type. |
2011 |
|
|
20240012 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Other Sites: Should an additional Note be added to Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H12, to indicate that if the diagnosis is an NOS histology in a polyp, continue on through the rules or should Other Sites Rule H13 be moved ahead of Rule H12 to capture this specific histology? See Discussion. |
The accuracy rate for SEER Workshop Case 04 (a duodenal invasive adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp) was very low because Rule H13 was either being ignored or users were stopping at Rule H12 to code adenocarcinoma. If the presence of an NOS histology in a polyp is still clinically relevant for the Other Sites module, this information will be missed due to the order of the H Rules, or the lack of clarification in Rule H12. If a change is made to Rule H12 (Single Tumor: Invasive Only module), then changes must also be made to the Single Tumor: In Situ Only module and the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module because both these modules include the same polyp coding H Rule. |
The rule order is the same as in the previous MP/H rules. Will keep as is for now. Assign codes adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp (8210), adenocarcinoma in villous adenoma (8261), and (adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenocarcinoma (8263) using Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule H12 or Rule H27 as these are specific invasive histology codes. Rule H13 applies to histology codes associated with polyps but associated with a histology term/code other than adenocarcinoma. |
2024 |
|
|
20000839 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Does the rule in the 3rd Edition of the SEER Program Code Manual apply to cases diagnosed before 1998 that states if there are two separate carcinomas in the thyroid, one papillary and the other follicular, it is one primary and coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary and follicular carcinoma]? See discussion. |
If the rule applies to cases diagnosed before 1998, does SEER plan to ask that cases diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded? |
The rule applies to tumors diagnosed 1998-2006. The rule is not retroactive. At this time, SEER does not plan to ask that tumors diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2000 |
|
|
20190026 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Does Rule M11 in the 04/2019 Solid Tumor Rules Urinary update apply to synchronous/simultaneous tumors only or to multiple tumors with any timing? See Discussion. |
Rule M11 states: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs, but neither the Rule nor the Notes describe the timing of these multiple urinary organ carcinomas. Timing requirements for other rules are clearly stated. Does Rule M11 have a timing requirement or is it intended to apply to all urothelial carcinoma tumors regardless of timing (and not already qualifying for application of a previous M rule)? |
The revised Urinary Solid Tumor Rules 2018 Rule M11, updated April 2019, removed the requirement of synchronous. This applies to urothelial carcinoma (8120) and its corresponding subtypes, regardless of behavior, that occur in more than one urinary site in a patient's lifetime. See change log for the April 2019 update to urinary rules.This is the same M/PH rule for multiple sites. Timing does not factor in to this rule. |
2019 |
|
|
20130023 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion. |
If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules? |
The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.
The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.
Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720. |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
