Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160020 | Reportability/Histology-Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable? |
High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3. |
Gallbladder | Histology | 2016 | |
|
|
20021004 | Histology: What code is used to represent the histology for the abbreviation "ca"? See discussion. | The abbreviation "ca" results in inconsistency when coding histology by a group of coders. Many abbreviation guides list both cancer (8000/3) and carcinoma (8010/3) as definitions for "ca." Page 261 of the SEER Self Instructional Manual, Book 5 lists carcinoma as the definition for "ca."
Example: What histology is used for a case with a clinical diagnosis of "recently diagnosed uterine ca" with metastasis to the pelvic lymph nodes? |
For uterine primaries, code the abbreviation "ca" to 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS].
When coding death certificate only (DCO) cases, if the site is coded to an unknown primary and no specific histology information is available other than the abbreviation "ca," interpret ca as cancer (8000/3) per NAACCR Procedure Guidelines for Registries, Series V; Resolving Death Clearance Issues, page V-15. |
N/A | Histology | 2002 |
|
|
20190057 | Reportability/Histology--Penis: Are and (PeIN) equivalent to PeIN3 and thus reportable? See Discussion. |
Appendix E1 of the 2018 SEER manual references a similar diagnosis as being reportable for vulva and vagina only. However, the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (4th ed) does include high grade penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a synonym for 8077/2. |
Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (PeIN III) and squamous cell carcinoma in situ of the penis are reportable. If possible, query the physicians as to whether "high grade penile intraepithelial lesion" or are synonymous with one of the reportable terms. If no further information can be obtained, report the case as C609 8077/2, and use text fields to document the details. |
N/A | Histology | 2019 |
|
|
20200077 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Kidney: What is the histology code for succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD)? See Discussion. |
Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules (STR) lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma as histology code 8312, but in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table it is listed as histology code 8311. No changes were made in the Kidney STR. As a result, the histology change described in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table conflicts with Table 1. Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD) is listed in Table 1 as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312). However, the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists this as a related term for histology code 8311/3. This related term was not discussed in the Implementation Guidelines, and no change was noted in the STR. While it seems we should continue to follow the STR, without clarification as to why this histology change was not implemented in STR, achieving consistency will be problematic if registrars jump straight to the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table to code histology for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. If this code cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that clarification be included in the STR? This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
When creating table 1, our GU SME's stated Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD) is a rare neoplasm and is coded to RCC, NOS until such time a new code is proposed in the 5th Ed BB. ICD-O-3.2 added this term to 8311 as a related term BUT there is no documentation that these neoplasms are different and should be on separate lines in table 1 making them separate primaries. Its likely IARC made the decision to group these rare genetic histologies into one code. SEER is waiting for confirmation from GU experts. If it's valid, the RCC row will be updated in columns 2 and 3 with applicable dates each histology is valid. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | Histology | 2020 |
|
|
20110024 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded, and which MP/H rule applies for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with clear cell features? See Discussion. | None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:
|
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Code 8523/2 [intraductal carcinoma mixed with other types of in situ carcinoma]. Rule H6 should apply to this case.
The wording in the Rule H6 needs to be clarified to handle a case of intraductal carcinoma with one or more subtypes that are not ductal. This will also require a modification to Table 3. A row needs to be added to the table labeled, "Intraductal and one or more of the histologies in Column 2." The Column 3 text for the newly added row would read, " Intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma." The appropriate histology code to be reported per Column 4 would be 8523/2. This will be done in the next revision of the rules. |
Breast | Histology | 2011 |
|
|
20240068 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovary case with a diagnosis of “high grade papillary serous carcinoma” in 2023? This term is not in the Solid Tumor Rules and ICD-O 3.2 updates. Is “high grade papillary serous carcinoma” equivalent to “high grade serous carcinoma” (8461) or to “papillary serous adenocarcinoma” (8441) with high grade captured only in the Grade fields, or is there another more appropriate code? |
Assign code 8461/3 for high-grade papillary serous carcinoma. |
Ovary | Histology | 2024 | |
|
|
20140026 | Histology: Are all well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (carcinoid) tumors coded to 8240 or 8246? When do you use code 8246? |
Code 8246 is correct when the mass/lesion is referred to as neuroendocrine "carcinoma" or NEC. Use code 8240 when the mass/lesion is referred to as a neuroendocrine "tumor" or NET G1. The difference is the word tumor versus carcinoma. Carcinoid is most often used interchangeably with neuroendocrine tumor and not with neuroendocrine carcinoma. |
N/A | Histology | 2014 | |
|
|
20240052 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland be accessioned as a reportable, behavior /1, CNS neoplasm? See Discussion. |
Imaging identified a mass involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland and excision of the mass proved “histiocytosis.” The case was extensively reviewed, and the physician notes this patient has a pituitary tumor that is a “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis,” or a “non-LCH histiocytic neoplasm.” There is no histology for histiocytosis (NOS) or non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, this does appear to be a non-malignant histiocytic neoplasm. If this were a Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm in the CNS it would be reportable. Should this non-Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm also be accessioned as a reportable CNS neoplasm? If so, how is the histology coded? |
Report this case as a pituitary tumor (8000/1) based on the information provided. This is the best choice as no specific histology code exists for this generic term “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis” in ICD-O-3.2, WHO Classification of CNS Tumors, 5th ed., and WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th ed. Be sure to double-check the behavior code of the tumor. Histiocytosis can be benign, borderline, or malignant. There was no mention of the behavior so we defaulted to uncertain behavior for this case. |
Brain and CNS, Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20240043 | Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” and, therefore, non-reportable, or is this a reportable non-colorectal high grade dysplasia? See Discussion. |
The 2022 ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines indicate “Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” is 8263/2 and is not SEER reportable. However, the 2024 SEER Manual and clarification from recent SINQs (20240021 and 20240025) confirm high grade dysplasia in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine is reportable (8148/2). Which reportability reference applies to a diagnosis of a tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia in non-colorectal sites? |
A diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum is not equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade.” Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade (8263/2) is not reportable as of 2022. High grade dysplasia (glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III) is reportable in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine (8148/2). |
Small intestine, Stomach | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20010003 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology "prostatic duct carcinoma"? See discussion. | Should the histology be coded to duct carcinoma [8500/3] or endometrioid carcinoma [8380/3]? Prostatic duct carcinoma is defined as endometrioid carcinoma; however, sometimes the pathology report describes the histology as being only "prostatic duct carcinoma." | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If there is no mention of endometrioid carcinoma in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8500/3 [duct carcinoma]. If "endometrioid carcinoma" is mentioned in either the final diagnosis or in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8380/3 [endometrioid carcinoma].
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. |
Prostate | Histology | 2001 |
An official website of the United States government
