Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110065 | Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a skin (right thigh) biopsy is consistent with mycosis fungoides (cutaneous T-cell lymphoma)? See Discussion. | Applying rule M15 (multiple primaries calculator) indicates this is two primaries. Is this correct? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C447 [skin of lower limb] and code histology to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides]. he pathologist wrote in parentheses that this was cutaneous (i.e. primary site is skin) and that it is a T-cell lymphoma (mycosis fungoides is a T-cell lineage). So the parenthetical statement was not a separate diagnosis; rather a general classification of the mycosis fungoides. "CTCL" is listed under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB. CTCL is an abbreviation for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. CTCL is a synonym for mycosis fungoides. This is a single primary per M2 which states to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.
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. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | Histology | 2011 |
|
|
20240038 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and what M Rule applies to a 2023 diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma followed by a 2024 diagnosis of pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) when the patient did not undergo surgery, but did undergo hormone therapy with Cabergoline? See Discussion. |
Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Rule M5 instructs us to abstract a single primary (as malignant) when a single tumor is originally diagnosed as non-malignant, the “First course treatment was active surveillance (no tumor resection),” and the subsequent resection pathology is malignant. This patient’s first course of treatment was not active surveillance. While the patient did not have first course tumor resection, the tumor was treated with Cabergoline. Should Rule M5 apply because there was no tumor resection? If so, should Rule M5 clearly state no tumor resection is the criteria (not active surveillance)? SINQ 20230023 does indicate a PitNET diagnosis following a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma does not fall into standard rules, but in the previous SINQ the first course treatment was a partial resection. It is unclear whether other types of treatment could result in a new malignant PitNET, following a previously treated non-malignant pituitary tumor. |
Abstract a single primary as 8272/3 (pituitary adenoma/PitNET) using the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M2, a single tumor is always a single tumor. Change the histology of the 2023 diagnosis to 8272/3. This scenario does not meet the criteria in the current rules for M5 in that it requires a resection as part of the criteria. Since the patient did not undergo resection for either diagnosis, the 2024 diagnosis may indicate recurrence or progression. A diagnosis of pituitary adenoma only is still coded 8272/0 (this code is still valid). A diagnosis of pituitary adenoma/PitNET, PitNET, or pituitary neuroendorine tumor is coded 8272/3. Cabergoline is used to treat prolactinoma or high levels of prolactin but does not impact the PitNET. |
Brain and CNS | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20240026 | Update to Current Manual/Reportability--Pancreas: For cases diagnosed 2024+, is a diagnosis of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia II (PanIN II) reportable? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual: Reportability – Reportable Diagnosis List indicates pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN II) (C250-C259) is reportable. However, the ICD-O-3.2 lists “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II” and “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, low grade” as histology code 8148 with behavior of /0 (benign). |
Do not report PanIN II. WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition, now categorizes PanIN into two categories, low grade (8148/0) and high grade (8148/2). PanIN grade I and PanIN grade II are categorized as PanIN low grade; PanIN grade III is categorized as PanIN high grade. We will update the Reportability section of the manual. |
Pancreas | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20130107 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for a diagnosis of polycythemia vera with myeloproliferative syndrome? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9950/3 [polycythemia vera], the more specific histology, per Rule PH29. Myeloproliferative syndrome is a non-specific (NOS) histology and polycythemia vera is a specific type of myeloproliferative disease.
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. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | Histology | 2013 | |
|
|
20240023 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Penis: Why is warty carcinoma listed in Other Sites, Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as 8051 when the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003 indicate the correct histology is 8054 for this neoplasm? See Discussion. |
The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003. However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not. Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003? |
Assign histology code 8054/3 for warty carcinoma. Assign 8051/3 for verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma cuniulatum. The WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition (2022) revised the terminology for squamous cell carcinoma groupings from "non-HPV-related" to "HPV-independent" and from "HPV-related to "HPV-associated". Warty carcinoma is defined as a "morphologically distinct HPV-associated verruciform neoplasm that shares histological features with a giant condyloma but has definitive cytological atypia and a malignant infiltrative architecture." Verrucous carcinoma (including carcinoma cuniculatum) is defined as an HPV-independent squamous cell carcinoma, and is correctly coded to 8051/3. The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 23, Penis and Scrotum Histologies will be updated to reflect this revised terminology and coding. |
N/A | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20240003 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III (LIN II or LIN III)? See Discussion. |
Laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III is not included in the ICD-O-3.2 and, while the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) confirms this is reportable, neither the SPCSM nor the Solid Tumor Rules Manual provide the specific histology to use for LIN II or LIN III. Should this be coded as 8077/2 since this is most like a high grade squamous dysplasia? |
Assign histology code, 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade) for LIN III and for LIN II. ICD-O-3.2 lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II and grade III as 8077/2 indicating it is reportable. ICD-O-3.2 does not list every site-specific type of intraepithelial neoplasia. Check the SEER manual for reportable and non-reportable examples. |
Head & Neck | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20091104 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion. | There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs. |
Esophagus | Histology | 2009 |
|
|
20230076 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: How is histology coded and what rule applies to a diagnosis of “prostatic adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation” with reference to the Comment: Immunohistochemical findings are consistent with amphicrine carcinoma for a patient with no prior androgen-deprivation therapy. See Discussion. |
The case in question represents an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation that arises in the absence of androgen-deprivation therapy. A 2023 journal article states, “We show that amphicrine prostate cancer is a unique entity and differs in clinical and molecular features from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the prostate. Our study highlights the need to recognize AMPC as a unique molecularly defined subgroup of prostate cancer.” Should we be coding this with histology 8140 (Adenocarcinoma, NOS) because we have no specific code for an amphicrine carcinoma? Should we code this as 8045 (Mixed small cell carcinoma) because this is possibly the only way to capture both the adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine components in a patient without previous treatment? Our concern about using histology code 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation) is that, while a valid histology code, this might confound the data if researchers are trying to separate the truly treatment-related tumors from other histologies captured under 8574. |
Assign 8140/3 (adenocarcinoma, NOS). WHO has not yet recognized the variant amphicrine prostate carcinoma and have not proposed an ICD-O code for this neoplasm. Document information in a related text field. |
Prostate | Histology | 2023 |
|
|
20110043 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which specimen should be used to code histology when a core biopsy revealed an unknown sized DCIS, comedo type and the partial mastectomy specimen showed only a 2mm focus of DCIS, solid pattern? See Discussion. | Should the histology be coded from the needle core biopsy or the partial mastectomy specimen? Patient had a needle core biopsy that revealed DCIS, comedo type, cribriform pattern, no tumor size given. Subsequently, the patient had a partial mastectomy which revealed DCIS, noncomedo type, solid pattern, largest focus of DCIS was 0.2cm.
Should the histology code be 8501/2 or 8230/2? The microscopic description on the partial mastectomy says that the previous core needle biopsy site revealed several foci of DCIS. |
Code the histology from the most representative specimen (the specimen with the MOST tumor tissue). Compare the size of tumor in the two specimens. If the tumor size is not available for both procedural specimens, code histology from the mastectomy specimen rather than the needle biopsy specimen. | Breast | Histology | 2011 |
|
|
20110028 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries and what histology(ies) are coded when the pathology report shows a, 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, with Hurthle cell features and a 2 mm focus of follicular variant, papillary carcinoma? See Discussion. | Right lobectomy pathology report final diagnosis states: 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma (see comment). Comment: histologic diagnosis Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma with Hurthle cell features. Subsequent left lobectomy one week later showed a 2 mm microscopic focus of follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, encapsulated.
None of the rules seems to fit this scenario. The number of primaries reported for this case depends on the histology coded for each tumor. Does Rule M6 (Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary.) or M17 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are at the first (xxx), second (xxx) or third (xxx) number are multiple primaries.) apply? Does the case represent a single primary because both are papillary/follicular tumors or two primaries because one is Hurthle cell carcinoma, and one is papillary/follicular carcinoma (different histology at second digit)?
To code the histology for the larger tumor in the right lobe, which rule do we apply? Rule H11 (single histology of Hurthle cell carcinoma [8290] per path final diagnosis), H15 (tumor has both follicular and papillary carcinoma [8340], per path comment), or H17 (numerically higher code for 8340 because there is both Hurthle cell and papillary/follicular carcinoma)? |
Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary.
The Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO. See page 67 of the 2004 WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a thyroid primary, use the Other Sites MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) to determine the number of primaries because the thyroid does not have site specific rules.
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M3 to Rule M18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary. The patient has a tumor in each lobe of the thyroid with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.
Determine the histology code. For a thyroid, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites Histo rules to determine histology because thyroid primaries do not have site specific rules.
Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, Rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H8 to Rule H18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. Code follicular and papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary carcinoma, follicular variant (8340). Use the comment to code the histology for the right lobectomy. "Probable" is an acceptable ambiguous term to use for coding histology. (See the Ambiguous Terms Used to Code Histology section of the General Instructions in the MP/H manual.) |
Thyroid | Histology | 2011 |
An official website of the United States government
