Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20210072 | Hormone Therapy--Breast: How are hormone therapy (HT) and other related data items coded when a patient had a previous breast primary and is still on HT when diagnosed with a new breast primary? See Discussion. |
In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach? |
For this example: 1. Code HT as treatment on the date of diagnosis for the second primary. 2. Code Systemic/Surgery Sequence as 4. 3. Do not code neoadjuvant data items as neoadjuvant started/completed. The HT given would not qualify for neoadjuvant therapy since the intent of the HT was not neoadjuvant. The HT would affect the second primary, but it is still not neoadjuvant. 4. Code clinical and pathological tumor size accordingly, based on the imaging and the pathological findings. 5. Code Extent of Disease data items based on the pathological findings since pathological findings take priority over clinical and this is not neoadjuvant therapy. |
2021 |
|
20240058 | Summary Stage 2018--Ovary: What is the summary stage for an ovarian primary in 2024, in which the ovary capsule was ruptured with surgical spill? See Discussion. |
In this case, the surgeon ruptured the ovarian tumor to drain it prior to removal causing the surgical spill. Regional lymph nodes are negative and there is no metastasis. The capsule was then noted as ruptured on pathology. Does it matter if the surgeon was the one who ruptured the capsule? Would the stage change if the surgeon intentionally ruptured the capsule to drain the tumor intraoperatively causing some surgical spill? The scenarios of an intentional and not intentional rupture are not specified in SEER Summary Stage 2018. |
Code SEER Summary Stage 2018 to Localized, Code 1. Per consult with AJCC and noted in the Primary Peritoneal Chapter in AJCC 8th edition, an intraoperative rupture is coded as a surgical spill. A capsule rupture is when the capsule ruptures prior to the surgery (Summary Stage Regional, Code 2). |
2024 |
|
20160052 | Summary Stage 2000--Lymphoma: How is SEER SS2000 coded for an ocular adnexal lymphoma when it extends from the primary site to adjacent sites that are still orbital structures? See Discussion. |
In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?
The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit? |
Assign SEER SS2000 code 5 (Regional, NOS) for a lymphoma of orbit extending to lacrimal gland. In SEER SS2000, this is Stage IIE: Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues. |
2016 |
|
20031095 | Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of "pericolonic fat, NOS" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description. |
In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension. |
Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only]. In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension. |
2003 |
|
20110094 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is a "nipple sparing mastectomy" coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] or 40 [total (simple) mastectomy] if the nipple/areolar complex was not removed but the pathology specimen indicates some breast skin was removed? See Discussion. |
In the past, the SEER Manual indicated that code 30 [subcutaneous mastectomies], which captured nipple-sparing mastectomies, would rarely be used because it was not typically performed as treatment for a malignancy. This note was removed from the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C. Code 30 which now states, "A subcutaneous mastectomy is the removal of breast tissue without the nipple and areolar complex or overlying skin." More "nipple-sparing mastectomies" are now being performed at certain facilities.
Should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded to 30 when a nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction is performed, even if there is skin removal? Or, does the skin removal indicate that this is not a subcutaneous mastectomy, and therefore code 43 [Total (simple) mastectomy with reconstruction, NOS] applies? |
Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 [Subcutaneous mastectomy] for this case.
Assign code 30 when the nipple and areolar complex are NOT removed. Assign code 40 (or higher) when the nipple and areolar complex ARE removed. |
2011 |
|
20031071 | EOD-Extension--Brain and CNS: How does one code this field for a brain primary with drop metastases and/or seeding? See Description. | In the past SEER has advised coding these cases to extension 60. However, SS2000 states to code these cases to distant.
1. Primary in the cerebrum, hypothalamic region, with drop mets to spinal cord. 2. Primary in the cerebellum with spinal cord drop mets. 3. Primary in the fourth ventricle, with drop mets along the spinal cord. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Assign extension code 85 [Metastasis] for drop metastases and/or seeding of the spinal cord from a brain primary. Assign code 85 to each of the three cases above. |
2003 |
|
20220030 | Histology--Lung: Is it acceptable to code histology as 8042/3 for a 2020 lung primary when the pathology report states only "oat cell carcinoma?" See Discussion. |
In the old 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions section, oat cell carcinoma (8042) was listed as one of the obsolete terms that was no longer recognized for small cell carcinoma. That note is not in the current 2018 Solid Tumor Manual lung chapter, and ICDO-3.2 lists oat cell carcinoma as the preferred term for code 8042/3. Would rule H4, Note 2 apply -- only one histology present, if not listed in Table 3 use ICD-O and all updates, to code oat cell carcinoma as 8042/3? |
While oat cell carcinoma is an outdated term, if that is all the pathology report states, code histology as 8042/3. Yes, Rule H4 applies: the diagnosis was a single histology. H4 instructs you to refer to the solid tumor H table, and if the term is not found there, check ICD-O and ICD-O updates. All possible histologic types that could occur in the lung may not be included in the table. |
2022 |
|
20230041 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: Is an in situ tumor followed by an invasive tumor a single or multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
In the examples below, are these a single or multiple primaries? Example 1: Tumor 1: C509/left breast, 8520/2 (in situ lobular carcinoma), dx date-01/10/2019 Tumor 2: C509/ left breast, 8500/3 (carcinoma NST), dx date-08/19/2021 Example 2: Tumor 1: C509, right breast, 8520/2, dx date 06/26/2014 Tumor 2: C508, right breast, 8500/3, dx date-05/23/2019 There seems to be some conflicting info on this. In the 2020 Breast Rules there was a note add to the revision history. “M10 Same behavior requirement re-added.” Which is not in the rules now, nor was it noted to the revision changes in the last two change logs. Inquiry 20200070 would seem to indicate that this is multiple primaries, but that contrasts with 20230010 which would seem to indicate a single primary, and an ASK A SEER Registrar question that we received a response to. I don’t see a scenario where rule M17, an invasive tumor DX more than 60 days after an in situ tumor would come into play. If behavior no longer applies to rule M10, at what point did that change get made? Please advise. |
Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular using the current Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, May 2023 Update, for cases diagnosed 01/01/2018 and forward in the examples provided. The rule also notes to follow the H rules to determine the correct histology code when a mixture of behaviors is present in carcinoma, NST and lobular carcinoma. Rule M5 does not apply as the timeframe is less than 5 years in both examples. The 2023 update for the Breast Solid Tumor Rules (released November 2022) states: The rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2. Applicable Histology Rules have also been revised to reflect ICD-O-3.2 histology terminology and corresponding ICD-O codes. |
2023 |
|
20041100 | Sequence Number-central/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): What criteria are to be used to determine which primary site carries a worse prognosis? Should we take survival into consideration? See Discussion. | In the case of two or more simultaneously diagnosed primary tumors, instructions in the SEER manual state that the tumor with the worse prognosis is to be assigned the lower sequence number. Prognosis decisions should be based on primary site, histology and extent of disease. Stage as a criteria for decision making is fairly straightforward. On the other hand, decisions based on primary site seem to be more subjective than objective. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Compare the combination of the primary site, histology and extent of disease for each primary, and assign the lowest sequence number to the primary with the worst prognosis. Do not use primary site or histology alone to determine prognosis in the case of assigning sequence number. Survival is a component of prognosis. If there is no difference in prognosis, assign the sequence numbers in any order.
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. |
2004 |
|
20220029 | Histology/Behavior--GI Tract: What is the difference between high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia for tumors in the cervix and gastrointestinal (GI) tract? Are these terms synonymous with in situ/behavior code /2? See Discussion. |
In the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, for the uterine cervix squamous intraepithelial lesions, there is related terminology for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion HSIL (CIN3) 8077/2 and it is severe squamous dysplasia; squamous cell in situ. However, in the online WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, there is no related terminology for esophageal high-grade squamous dysplasia, 8077/2. Can you collect cases of severe dysplasia the same as cases of high grade dysplasia? |
According to a leading GI pathologist, severe dysplasia is equivalent to high grade dysplasia in the GI tract. |
2022 |