Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031194 | Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description. |
We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans? Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes? |
Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. | 2003 |
|
|
20210047 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Colon: Does the 2018 SEER Summary Staging Manual, Digestive System Sites, Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System, #1. b., Exception, include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)? This seems to be in conflict with Extent of Disease (EOD) 2018. See Discussion. |
We are preparing to send our hospitals a reminder that the behavior changes from 2 to 3 at the bottom of the basement membrane, and the T category changes from Tis to T1 at the bottom of the mucosa for colon and rectum carcinomas. We are confused by the wording of the Exception. Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System 1.b. If the tumor has penetrated the basement membrane to invade the lamina propria, in which case it is localized and assigned Summary Stage 1 (localized) and for invasion of the lamina propria Exception: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes cancer cells confined within the glandular basement membrane (intraepithelial); includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) The text following (intraepithelial) is unclear. The question is: Does the text include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) mean the following: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma. In situ plus intramucosal carcinoma is involvement of the lamina propria, which may involve (but not penetrate through) the muscularis mucosae. Penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior 3. If that is what the text above means, then it seems that the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Manual is saying colorectal tumors reported as: adenocarcinoma in situ, at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, focally intramucosal at the margin are to be coded behavior 2 and SEER Summary stage In situ (0) like the intraepithelial carcinoma tumors. However, it conflicts with the EOD Data for Colon and Rectum, Note 2, and SINQ 20210006. The text for both EOD Data for Colon and Rectum and SINQ 20210006 is clear. According to them, the above bulleted adenocarcarcinoma examples are coded SEER Summary Stage localized (1) and behavior 3. SINQ 20210006 states that: For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion So, intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). According to the text for EOD Primary Tumor, Colon and Rectum, Note 2 below, intramucosal, NOS involvement is invasive. Note 2: Code 050 (behavior code 3) includes the following: Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa Thank you for your help clarifying the 2018 SEER Summary Manual Exception text above. |
For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal, NOS is a localized lesion. Intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). The involvement of the following are assigned localized in Summary Stage and assigned a behavior code of 3. Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa The Exception you cite may need to be reworded. We will review for the next version of the Summary Stage manual. |
2021 |
|
|
20250018 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are histology and behavior coded when the Integrated Diagnosis is "Meningioma, WHO Grade 2," and the Histological Classification is "Meningioma with elevated mitotic activity, hypercellularity, necrosis, and sheeting architecture?" See Discussion. |
We are increasingly seeing pathologists use this terminology to describe WHO G2 meningiomas, but the histology term "Atypical meningioma" is not being used, and a more specific "Histological Classification" of other WHO Grade 2 meningiomas (i.e., chordoid or clear cell meningioma) is not given. Can the combination of meningioma, WHO Grade 2 plus the histological classification listing multiple features of an atypical meningioma be used to code morphology to 9539/1? Or is this just a meningioma, NOS 9530/0 despite the WHO Grade 2 classification? |
Code meningioma, NOS (9530/0) based on the integrated diagnosis and histological classification. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, states that brain invasion is a criterion for the diagnosis of CNS WHO grade 2 meningioma, and there is no statement of brain invasion, atypical meningioma, or other WHO grade 2 lesions. WHO has not proposed behavior codes based on WHO grade alone. |
2025 |
|
|
20140040 | Reportability/Primary Site--Lip: Is a right lower lip (NOS) squamous cell carcinoma reportable when the microscopic description states the tumor arises from the epidermis and extends through the dermis? See discussion. |
We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable? |
This case is interpreted as skin of lip and not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, the pathologist in this case "is specifically saying "epidermis" and "dermis" and I would have to think it is skin, and thus not reportable." |
2014 |
|
|
20190021 | Sequence Number Central--Brain and CNS: How is Sequence Number--Central coded for current/recent benign brain/CNS tumors when the patient has a history of an additional non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 (when these tumors became reportable to SEER)? See Discussion. |
We are confused by the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction that states: This sequence number counts all tumors that were reportable in the year they were diagnosed even if the tumors occurred before the registry existed or before the registry participated in the SEER Program. Does this rule apply to benign and borderline CNS tumors? Does this mean that any non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 should NOT be included in the sequencing (in the 60s range) if we were collecting non-malignant CNS per our State Registry reporting requirements prior to 2004? Example: Patient has a March 2017 diagnosis of right sided vestibular schwannoma (C724-1, 9560/0) and a prior history of left sided acoustic neuroma (c724-2, 9560/0) diagnosed in 1991. How should sequence be coded for each primary in our file? |
For your example, code the Sequence Number--Central as 61 for the 1991 diagnosis if this was a state registry requirement in 1991 and code 62 for the 2017 diagnosis. |
2019 |
|
|
20210070 | Histology/Reportability--Digestive System: Is “neuroendocrine neoplasm” reportable? See Discussion. |
We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051. The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET). In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list. Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else? Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS. For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry. |
Reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depends on primary site, terminology, and differentiation. "Neuroendocrine neoplasm" is an umbrella term for a variety of neuroendocrine tumors and carcinomas. Neuroendocrine neoplasm, not otherwise specified (NEN, NOS) is not reportable as in your example unless it is being used as a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET), as with digestive system tumors. According to WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th ed., NENs of the appendix and liver are epithelial neoplasms with neuroendocrine differentiation, including well-differentiated tumors (NETs) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). The guidance in SINQ 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051 is still valid. |
2021 |
|
|
20240053 | Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is a 2022 diagnosis of “clear cell renal cell papillary tumor” on nephrectomy reportable? See Discussion. |
We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3. While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1. |
Report clear cell renal cell papillary tumor (CCRCPT), formerly classified as clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma, and assign code 8323/3 until this new term and code (8323/1) have been adopted by standard setters. The Kidney Solid Tumor Rules advise to code clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as 8323/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th ed., has reclassified this histology as a /1. This change has not yet been implemented and it remains reportable. WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th ed., has since reclassified clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as CCRCPT (8323/1). The name change was made because there have been no reports of metastatic events for this indolent tumor. The term clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma is no longer recommended. |
2024 |
|
|
20210048 | Reportability--Anal Canal: Is a 2021 diagnosis of moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II) of the anal canal reportable? See Discussion. |
We are aware that squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II (e.g., AIN II), 8077/2 is reportable for 2021. However, because this is also called rather than high grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2), we are unsure about reportability. There is no known histology and behavior code for moderate squamous dysplasia, the classifications available are only low grade (8077/0) or high grade (8077/2). |
If possible, clarify with the pathologist/physician what is meant by "moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II)." If no further information can be obtained, report this case based on the diagnosis of "AIN II." Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia. |
2021 |
|
|
20190075 | Sex: How should the sex field be coded for the newly allowable non-binary gender designation ? See Discussion. |
Washington State added to birth certificates, which allows people to have their certificates changed to this non-binary gender designation. Gender X is defined as a gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to: intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified. |
Code Gender X as 9 when that is the only information available. Use text fields to document the details. Also refer to coding instruction #7. When gender is not known Assign code 1 when the primary site is C600 'C639 Assign code 2 when the primary site is C510 'C589 Assign code 9 for primary sites not included above |
2019 |
|
|
20021046 | Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: If an in situ lesion of the urinary bladder involves the von Brunn nests, is it still in situ? See discussion. | Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium. Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests... Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21 |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Behavior Code and the EOD-Extension field according to the pathology report.
If the pathology report states the tumor to be noninvasive or in situ, whether or not von Brunn nests are involved, code behavior as 2 [in situ] and extension as in situ.
If the tumor is described as invasive and involves the von Brunn nests, code the EOD-Extension field to 15 [invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue] because code 15 includes extension to the lamina propria and von Brunn nests are within the lamina propria. |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
