Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100061 | MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. | Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. | We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." | N/A | Histology | 2010 |
|
|
20100014 | Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?
1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa. 2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive. 3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface. 4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue. 5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking. 6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied. 7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given. 8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum). 9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk". 10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria". 11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST. 12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface. 13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria. 14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential." 15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+. 16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy." |
For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. | N/A | N/A | 2010 |
|
|
20240070 | Reportability/Histology: Does Cancer Pathology Coding Histology And Registration Terminology (Cancer PathCHART) determine if the histology is reportable or do we have to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheet? |
The CPC ICD-O-3 Site Morphology Validation Lists (SMVLs) designate all tumor site-morphology combinations that are either valid or impossible as determined for the sites reviewed by the Cancer PathCHART initiative. These lists provide information on the Validity Status of specific tumor site and morphology combinations, similar to the way the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation List used to. However, the CPC SMVLs do not include information on the reportability of specific tumor site and morphology combinations. For tumor reportability, you will continue to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheets posted to the NAACCR ICD-O-3 Coding Updates website: https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/, and the most recent SEER Manual and federal, state, local, and other standard setters' reportability requirements. |
N/A | Histology | 2024 | |
|
|
20150001 | Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify. According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable. |
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'" Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix. |
N/A | Histology | 2015 | |
|
|
20031013 | EOD-Extension--Pleura: How do you code this field for a pleural mesothelioma with negative pleural effusion? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Pleural effusion is disregarded if it is unknown, NOS or benign. Use other information on the case to stage. | N/A | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20140064 | Reportability--Testis: Is a mature teratoma of the testis reportable? See discussion. |
Mature teratoma is listed as a benign neoplasm (9080/0) in the ICD-O-3. SINQ 20120085 references a NAACCR Webinar that indicated pure mature teratomas of the testis in adults are reportable. We are not aware of any further documentation of this change in reportability. When did mature teratomas of the testis for adults become reportable? What is the defined age range for "adult"? The original SINQ question above lists the 2012 SEER Manual as a Reference, however, no clarification or mention of this change in reportability was found in that manual. |
For testis, mature teratoma in an adult (post-puberty) is reportable because it is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0). The 2011 NAACCR webinar introduced this concept and it was documented in the 2012 SINQ question. You may use 2011 or 2012 as the date of this change. The next edition of the SEER manual will include reportability examples. |
N/A | N/A | 2014 |
|
|
20160001 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion. |
Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.
This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information? |
Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information. |
N/A | Histology | 2016 |
|
|
20120017 | Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability? |
This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3]. Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy. |
N/A | N/A | 2012 |
|
|
20120079 | Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS? | Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases. As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology. |
N/A | N/A | 2012 | |
|
|
20140008 | Primary site: If text supports a pancreatobiliary primary with no other information what primary site code would be assigned? C249 biliary tract NOS, or C269 GI tract nos, or C809 unknown? | Assign C269 in the absence of any additional information. | N/A | Primary site | 2014 |
An official website of the United States government
