Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200086 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: Paraganglioma, NOS is reportable and malignant for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 and later. Paraganglioma, NOS is listed in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as 8680/3 without synonyms or related terms. Table 4 (ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines) lists 8693/3 Paraganglioma as a new preferred term. Is this correct? See Discussion. |
Table 4 (Changes in reportable terminology), 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update, does confirm that the term malignant no longer needs to be used to describe a paraganglioma, but Table 4 includes the histology for extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) as the new preferred term for paraganglioma. Paraganglioma, NOS is histology code 8680/3. Which code is correct? This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The correct code for extra-adrenal paraganglioma is 8693/3. The preferred term for 8380/3 is Paraganglioma, NOS. Table 4 of the 2021 ICD-O update was based on information from WHO. Table 9 in the Head and Neck ST rules is being revised and formatted differently for ease of coding based on diagnosis year (prior to 2021 and 2021 forward). Not ALL paragangliomas will be included in Table 9. If a term and code are not provided in the rules, refer to ICD-O and updates. |
2020 |
|
|
20200047 | Stage-related Data Item/Lymphovascular Invasion--Ovary: The 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual states that LVI is coded 8 (Not applicable) for Ovary (Schema 00551). What is the reason for having lymphovascular invasion (LVI) coded "8" for Ovary? See Discussion. |
This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice. |
The coding instructions were developed and implemented in concert with the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, and updated with the 8th edition as per the 2018 STORE Manual and were based on sites where distinguishing between lymphatic/small vessel invasion and venous/large vessel invasion was not medically appropriate. SEER required LVI for penis and testis cases only beginning in 2016; sites other than penis or testis are coded 8 unless required by state or central registries. The list for use of code 8 has been changed for 2021 and will no longer include Ovary. |
2020 |
|
|
20150013 | Surgery of Primary Site: What is the most extensive, invasive or definitive surgical procedure when the second surgical procedure performed has a lower surgery code? See discussion.
|
Examples
8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG 9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)
5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg 6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg |
The code in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site should correspond to the most invasive, extensive, or definitive surgery when the patient has multiple surgical procedures of the primary site even if there is no residual tumor found in the pathologic specimen from the more extensive surgery. The timing of the procedures does not affect the code choice.
Assign code 27 for the first example. Assign code 24 for the second example. |
2015 |
|
|
20021041 | First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy--All Sites: How do we code retinoic acid? | The code for retinoic acid depends upon the primary site and histology of the tumor. Code retinoic acid (also called Vitamin A, tretinoin, ATRA, all-transretinoic acid or Vesanoid) in the Immunotherapy field as 01 [Immuno administered as first course therapy] for acute promyelocytic leukemia. This drug is given to patients as an alternative to chemotherapy.
For all other sites/histologies, code retinoic acid in the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field. Use code 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy] or 3 [Double-blind clinical trial, code not yet broken] if the drug is given as part of a protocol. If the drug is not being given as part of a protocol or you don't know whether it is part of a protocol, use code 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy]. |
2002 | |
|
|
20210021 | EOD 2018/Lymph Nodes-EOD--Breast: Should Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes be coded as 150 (Clinical assessment only; Positive needle core biopsy/fine needle aspirate [FNA]) when the patient has a biopsy-proven, clinically apparent, movable ipsilateral axillary lymph node, but no evidence of involvement at surgery after neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion. |
The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment? |
The clinical assessment code takes priority over the pathological assessment code in this case because the clinical assessment was worse than the pathologic assessment. Although there was a pathological assessment, the clinical assessment is greater. According to the general coding guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy, code the worst information, which in this case is the clinical assessment. The 2018 EOD General Instructions for EOD Regionals Nodes, instruction #4, addresses neoadjuvant therapy as follows. Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the most extensive lymph node involvement documented. A new note is being included for the 2022 updates. Exception: If patient has neoadjuvant therapy, and the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment, the clinical assessment code takes priority. |
2021 |
|
|
20021151 | Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion. |
Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant." |
The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable. |
2002 |
|
|
20010155 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion. |
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8? |
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)]. |
2001 |
|
|
20100002 | Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. | The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable? | The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia. Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma. |
2010 |
|
|
20071060 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"? |
The case is not reportable. The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy. |
2007 | |
|
|
20140034 | Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.
The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix? |
The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way "metastases" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.
Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix. |
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
