Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230054 | Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: According to SINQ 20140058, solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable (as of 2014). However, per ICD-O-3.2, this histology is not reportable until 2021+. Please clarify which is correct and clearly state the timeframe that it was reportable or not reportable. |
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable for cases diagnosed in 2014 and later. Report solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas (8452/3) as the guidance in SINQ 20140058 is still in effect. The 4th and 5th editions of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the digestive system define solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas as a low-grade malignant pancreatic tumor. |
2023 | |
|
|
20210008 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: In what situation will Rule H6 be used to code the histology to lentigo maligna melanoma? See Discussion. |
Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule? |
Solid Tumor rule H6 is the same as MP/H rule H8. We found registrars have problems understanding reportable terminology and the corresponding ICD-O-3 histology code for lentigo maligna melanoma. It is included in H6 to capture cases where the registrar may not stop at H1. We will add another note to H1 instructing users to continue through the rules if the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma. |
2021 |
|
|
20190017 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: The term indolent systemic mastocytosis is listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table with borderline behavior (9741/1). However, smoldering systemic mastocytosis is listed in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database (Heme DB) as an alternate name for histology 9741/3. Are smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis synonymous? If so, should smoldering systemic mastocytosis also be removed from the Heme DB alternate names listing? See Discussion. |
In addition to the issue mentioned above, there is a SINQ answer that conflicts with the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table. SINQ 20130134 indicates indolent systemic mastocytosis is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. There is no date restriction indicating the SINQ note applies only for cases diagnosed 2010-2017. Since indolent systemic mastocytosis was changed to borderline (9741/1) for diagnosis year 2018+, should the diagnosis year range be updated for this SINQ answer? |
Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable, 9741/3. Indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable as of cases diagnosed 2018, 9741/1. Smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis are not synonymous. Smoldering differs from indolent based on diagnostic criteria and burden of disease; indolent is low whereas smoldering is high burden of disease that can progress to aggressive systemic mastocytosis or mast cell leukemia. We will update SINQ 20130134. |
2019 |
|
|
20240011 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Other Sites: Other Sites Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes) requires site designations; can sites be added? See Discussion. |
There are multiple possible entries (rows) for a tumor with a neuroendocrine component and non-neuroendocrine component, but these rows do not specify which primary sites are applicable. Row 1 (Combined small cell carcinoma, 8045) seems applicable to a prostate primary, but not to a GI primary since GI primaries are now generally referred to as MiNENs (mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine tumors), but Table 2 does not provide any instructions regarding how to determine the difference between 8045 and 8154 (or 8244). For SEER Workshop Case 03 (mixed prostate case), many users selected 8154 or 8244 as the mixed histology code per Table 2, but these histology codes are not listed as applicable in Table 3 (Prostate Histologies). Per the WHO Blue Books, these histologies are not listed as applicable to the prostate. How are registrars to determine the correct mixed code without site designations, especially if they don't have access to the WHO Blue Book or to a pathologist who may be able to clarify the codes? |
Sites may be added to certain combinations when indicated by ClinCORE review for Cancer PathCHART. Please note some sites were added in the 2024 update as a result of PathCHART review. A newly-formed Solid Tumor Editorial Board and its subgroups are currently working to evaluate the Solid Tumor Manual and make recommendations on ways to improve the structure and formatting of the manual and its content. Follow the rules and instructions in the Other Sites STRs when assigning combination histology codes. Histology Coding Rules Use the Histology Coding Rules when assigning combination codes. Coding Histology Information Use this section that includes the mixed histology (Table 2) and site-specific histology tables (Tables 3-23) for one or more histologies within a single tumor. Do not use this section in place of the Histology Coding Rules. While site-specific histology tables, based on current WHO Classification of Tumors books, have been added to Other Sites STRs, not all site groups have individual histology tables; coding may require the use of ICD-O and updates. The histology tables in Other Sites STRs include additional coding instructions and notes to assign the correct ICD-O code when appropriate. The tables are not meant to be all-inclusive; rather they are intended to address difficult coding situations to facilitate the assignment of the correct histology code. Table 2: Mixed and Combination Codes Instructions Once you have identified the histology terms and have been instructed to use Table 2 by the Histology Coding Rules, compare the terms in the diagnosis to the terms in Column 1. When the terms match, use the combination code listed in Column 2. Use adenocarcinoma mixed subtypes 8255 as a “last resort” code. |
2024 |
|
|
20160004 | First course treatment/Other therapy: How is Sirolimus (Rapamycin) to be coded when given with known chemotherapy agents in a clinical trial? See discussion. |
The SEER*Rx Database lists Sirolimus as an ancillary agent under the Category section, but as an mTOR inhibitor under the Subcategory. The Remarks section indicates Sirolimus (AKA Rapamycin) is an immunosuppressant, but is also a type of serine/threonine kinase inhibitor. Other types of kinase inhibitors (including Temsirolimus) are types of Chemotherapy. Although the Coding section states this drug should not be coded, Primary Sites (NSCLC and glioblastoma) are listed for this drug. The SEER*Rx Database page for this drug is confusing. Please address the following. 1) Should Sirolimus not be coded when it is being given as a kinase inhibitor or an immunosuppressant? 2) If Sirolimus is ever treatment, should it be coded only for the primary sites listed? 3) If Sirolimus is given as part of a non-blind clinical trial for another site other than NSCLC or glioblastoma, should the Other Therapy field be coded to 2 [experimental - other treatment]? |
Sirolimus is used to treat GVHD (graft versus host disease) and is not coded as treatment. Even though the sub-category is mTOR inhibitor it does not automatically mean it is a chemotherapeutic agent. Sirolimus affects cells differently than Temsirolimus. The chemical compounds differ between these drugs. In order to code rapamycin, the drug given must be stated to be either the analog or ester compound. The SEER*RX database has been corrected and NSCLC/glioblastoma are no longer listed for sirolimus. We researched clinical trials and found several that include sirolimus with other chemotherapy drugs for patients who either have received or will be receiving bone marrow transplants for hematologic diseases. In this case it is not coded. There are a few trials that are looking at sirolimus as a treatment for bladder, prostate, nerve sheath tumors, MDS, and AML. For these cases it would be coded in Other (code 2). |
2016 |
|
|
20190011 | Reportability--Skin: Is an atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin reportable? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment. Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.) There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification. Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available? |
Since you do not have the option of checking with the pathologist and no further information is available, do not report this case. The diagnosis is atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin, which is not reportable. Registrars with access to the pathologist should querry the pathologist for clarification in this situation. |
2019 |
|
|
20180034 | Reportability--Vulva: Is a biopsy showing high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VIN II) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion. |
In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol? |
Since this HSIL diagnosis is specified as VIN II, do not report it. WHO includes both VIN II and VIN III as synonyms for HSIL of the vulva. HSIL is reportable and VIN III is reportable. VIN II is not reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20190061 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy of the right breast in 2016 with all treatment refused, followed by a 2019 large right breast mass ulcerating the skin and clinical diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (patient again refused all treatment)? See Discussion. |
The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case. However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case. |
Since the first diagnosis is in situ, and the later diagnosis is invasive, the 2019 diagnosis is a new primary even though it may be the same non-treated tumor. For cases diagnosed 2018 and later, abstract multiple primaries according to the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M17 that states Abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor in the same breast. Note 1: The rules are hierarchical. Only use this rule when none of the previous rules apply. Note 2: Abstract both the invasive and in situ tumors. Note 3: Abstract as multiple primaries even if physician states the invasive tumor is disease recurrence or progression. Note 4: This rule is based on long-term epidemiologic studies of recurrence intervals. The specialty medical experts (SMEs) reviewed and approved these rules. Many of the SMEs were also authors, co-authors, or editors of the AJCC Staging Manual. |
2019 |
|
|
20190014 | Reportability--Behavior: Is reportable if it shows invasion or microinvasion pathologically? See Discussion. |
The SEER Manual states, Generally, this rule is invoking the Matrix principle in the ICD-O-3. We are aware this is not the same as a VIN III or an adenoma with microinvasion because those tumors have a valid histology code listed in the ICD-O-3. The terms or or do not have a valid ICD-O-3 code to apply the Matrix principle. If severe dysplasia is felt to be consistent with a carcinoma in situ, then a severe dysplasia with microinvasion would be reportable as 8010/3. But in the U.S., we do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ). |
Severe dysplasia alone is not reportable. No further instructions apply because this term is not reportable.In order to use the instructions for behavior, you must first have a reportable neoplasm. If carcinoma in situ is mentioned and there is microinvasion, code the behavior as /3 according to the instructions in the SEER manual. You are correct, do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ). |
2019 |
|
|
20210043 | Reportability--Fallopian Tube: Is a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? Does the designation of high or low grade have any effect on potential reportability? See Discussion. |
Patient has left salpingo-oophorectomy showing fallopian tube with focal high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm. In reviewing some journal articles, the term STIN is being used to describe both STIC and serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (STIL). We will likely continue to see this term used, so it would be nice to have some clarity. |
Serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) is not equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Report STIN only when stated to be high grade. STIC is reportable. Do not report STIL. According to our expert pathologist consultant, STIL and STIN are broad descriptive terms that reflect proliferation of epithelial cells with varying degrees of atypia, with the most developed, STIC, reflecting convincing neoplastic change. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
