Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110116 | MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for "heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation"? |
The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology. Expert consultation: The designation "carcinosarcoma" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term "biphasic." The term "heterologous" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi). |
2011 | |
|
|
20240035 | Solid Tumor Rules--Urinary: The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules refers to the same row in Table 3. Should the example say Table 2 since Table 3 is non-reportable urinary tumors. See Discussion. |
Rule M15 Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Note: The same row means the tumors are • The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR • One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR • A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR • A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3. |
The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules should refer to Table 2. We will update this in the next revision of the Rules. |
2024 |
|
|
20170077 | First Course Treatment: Should the definition in the 2016 SEER Coding Manual be revised for first course of treatment following disease progression for patients who complete the initial first course treatment plan without alteration but had one or more treatment modalities given after disease progression was identified? See Discussion. |
The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed. SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.) For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files? |
The example cited above will not be included in the 2018 edition of the SEER manual. Removing this example will improve the consistency in recording first course of treatment for cases diagnosed 2018 and later. |
2017 |
|
|
20130180 | Histology--Pancreas: What is the difference between pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) [8240/3] and the new ICD-O-3 terms pancreatic endocrine tumor, benign [8150/0] and pancreatic endocrine tumor, malignant [8150/3]? See Discussion. | SEER Inquiry 20120035 discusses the reportability of pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) tumors. | The difference is that 8150 is for islet cell tumors. The preferred name was changed by WHO/IARC to reflect the current language used by pathologists to describe islet cell tumors [8150].
The 8240 histology code added the neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1, low or well differentiated terms to the carcinoid ICD-O name.
Islet cell tumors are more aggressive than the pancreatic NET tumors. Treatment and prognosis are determined by the histologic type. While the histology code 8150 is not new, the histology name has been updated. |
2013 |
|
|
20190040 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is peripheral blood with a diagnosis of monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) phenotype reportable for any year? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180050 and 20130041 appear to have conflicting answers regarding the reportability of MBL with CLL (immuno)phenotype. While the question content of SINQ 20180050 does not reference the CLL phenotype, it is included in the Discussion as part of the oncologist's assessment. The answer does not address the clinical diagnosis of MBL with CLL-phenotype and simply states that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not reportable. SINQ 20130041 does include the CLL phenotype information in the primary question and it is expanded on in the discussion as present in peripheral blood. Based on that information, the answer is that it should be reportable and coded as CLL (9823/3). |
The description in the question is for 9823/1 per WHO blue book 2016. This description and code are not reportable. We will review the other SINQ questions and revise if necessary. |
2019 |
|
|
20071045 | Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion. | Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95. | The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis. Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days. This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual. |
2007 |
|
|
20110009 | Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion. |
2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.
Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?
|
The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].
As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2011 |
|
|
20061049 | Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy? | The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy. "In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list. |
2006 | |
|
|
20010145 | EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion. | Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20? | The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.
If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category. |
2001 |
|
|
20240008 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the term “diffuse” be added to Note 2 in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants, for the papillary glioneuronal tumor 9509/1? See Discussion. |
Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor." |
The correct term is diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor listed as a synonym in Column 2. We will add the term diffuse in Note 2, Column 1 with the 2025 updates. In the meantime, you can add "diffuse" to your pdf version until the update is published. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
