System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 02/27/2026 17:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20230062

Update to current manual/EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Appendix: Is it correct to code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor as code 500 (Invasion of/through serosa (mesothelium) (visceral peritoneum)) and EOD Mets as code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells), when the resection pathology report for a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) proves “Tumor Extent: Acellular mucin invades visceral peritoneum (serosa)” as well as metastatic LAMN within the right lower quadrant peritoneum? See Discussion.

This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease. This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500. Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells). Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant. Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant. This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category). Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field? In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)?

Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor and code 30 for EOD Mets. This will correctly derive the T4aM1b stage based on AJCC 8th edition.

Abstraction of peritoneal metastasis changed from the T category in the AJCC 7th edition to the M category in the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. As a result, for cases diagnosed in 2018 and later, peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant should be abstracted as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30. However, the EOD Primary Tumor code of 600 has not yet been updated to align with the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. The 2025 updates will correct for this via a conversion for cases diagnosed in 2018 and forward where EOD Primary Tumor = 600 and EOD Mets = 00 or 10 to EOD Primary Tumor = 500 and EOD Mets = 30. Effective immediately, abstract peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30, even though you will still have the ability to assign EOD Primary Tumor code 600 in your abstraction software until the 2025 updates are deployed.

 2023
20230063

EOD 2018/EOD Regional Nodes--Melanoma: Can central cancer registries code Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes as 000 based on Breslow’s depth and/or Clark’s Level (per EOD and/or Summary Stage) from a melanoma pathology only report with a localized tumor and no information on regional lymph nodes or mets. See Discussion.

Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met

a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;

b. The patient has localized disease;

c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.

As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.

Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?

Assign 000 for EOD Regional Nodes when you have a pathology only report with a localized tumor based on Breslow’s depth and/or Clark’s Level (per EOD and/or Summary Stage) and no information on regional lymph nodes or mets. When the tumor is noted to be regional or distant based on Breslow’s Depth and/or Clark’s based on the definitions in EOD and/or Summary Stage, do not assume that the nodes are negative and assign 999. Clarification will be added to the EOD manual.

 2023
20230027

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Peripheral Nerves: How many primaries should be abstracted, and which M Rule applies, when a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) in the right arm (C471) is followed greater than one year later by a separate malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the thoracic chest wall (C473)?  See Discussion.

Since the peripheral nerves are included in the Malignant CNS schema of the Solid Tumor Rules, neither the differences in subsite nor timing indicate these are separate primaries (Rule M10 indicates a single primary). However, these are separate MPNSTs in different sites and the tumors are not stated to be metastasis. Additionally, these are treated as separate primaries by the managing physician.

While the malignant CNS tumors do not take timing into account, is this correct for these peripheral nerve tumors that are often treated similarly to soft tissue tumors? Should Rule M8 be updated to include tumors in different peripheral nerve subsites?

Abstract a single primary using Solid Tumor Rules, Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves, Rule M10 based on the information provided.  Rule M10 applies as both non-contiguous tumors are of the same histology; i.e., on the same row in Table 3. As MPNST can arise in many sites, look for information about the precise location and tissue type in which the tumor arose. For example, if the tumors are stated to arise in soft tissue, follow the Multiple Primary Rules for Other Sites.

Both WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors and WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors state that MPNST is a malignant spindle cell tumor often arising from a peripheral nerve, from a pre-existing benign nerve sheath tumor, or in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1).

Future updates will move C470-C479 from CNS to other sites module.

 2023
20230039

Histology/Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms--AML:  What is the histology code for Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML) with monocytic differentiation, 9891/3: acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia or 9867/3: Acute myelomonocytic leukemia?

Code AML with monocytic differentiation as acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (9861/3) per consultation with our expert hematopathologist.

Acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia (9891/3) and acute myelomonocytic leukemia (9867/3) are distinct entities according to the WHO. "AML with monocytic differentiation" is a descriptive diagnosis, whereas, "Acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia" are specific diagnoses. In the WHO Classification of Tumours, Central nervous system tumours (4th Ed) in 2016, WHO began integrating information on molecular alterations that provide significant prognostic implications and/or a therapeutic target into the histology code/term itself. As a result it is also important to look at the molecular testing because acute myeloid leukemias can have different molecular mutations that could result in coding to a different histology code. In this case, there was no other information regarding additional immunophenotyping, so that is why AML, NOS was assigned.  Acute myeloid leukemia with monocytic differentiation has been added to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database as an alternate name for 9861/3.

 2023
20230055

Reportability/Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "the differential diagnoses include, but not limited to, mantle cell lymphoma, atypical chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and a variant of marginal zone lymphoma" reportable? In the Heme manual, they use differential diagnosis that include reportable conditions as reportable. This can be found under Code 1: positive histology in the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instruction section page 18. The phrase "include, but not limited to" makes this not clear. 

This is reportable as 9591/3, B-cell lymphoma, NOS.All diagnoses in the differential are all B-cell lymphomas. The pathologist knows it a B-cell lymphoma but has not determined the subtype. If at a later time a specific lymphoma is determined, update the histology code accordingly. 

 2023
20230047

Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck:  Is a 2023 mandibular biopsy showing “severe squamous dysplasia with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion” reportable?  See Discussion.

Patient had a mandibular mucosal lesion resected in June of 2023, with a diagnosis of “atypical squamous proliferation” and case was forwarded to an expert in oral pathology for best classification. Subsequent slide review final diagnosis was “moderate to severe squamous dysplasia.” That slide review diagnosis goes on to state “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.”

Currently there is no ICD-O code for severe squamous dysplasia, however it is unclear if this terminology is equivalent to high grade squamous dysplasia (histology code 8077/2).

Report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) on the basis of “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” "Severe dysplasia" is equivalent to "high grade dysplasia" in the Head and neck. As such, "severe squamous dysplasia" would be coded to 8077/2. However, in combination with the statement of "with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion,” report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) based on “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” The 2023 SEER Manual instructs us to code the behavior as malignant (/3) if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited, i.e., microinvasion. Use text fields to record the details. 

 2023
20230036

Reportability/Histology--Vulva:  Is angiomyxoma (8841/1), such as aggressive angiomyxoma of vulva diagnosed in 2022, reportable?

Do not report superficial angiomyxoma (8841/0) or aggressive angiomyxoma (8841/0).  WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, defines deep (aggressive) angiomyoma as a benign, infiltrative, myxoid spindle cell neoplasm that occurs in deep soft tissue of the pelviperineal region.

 2023
20230066

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: Table 3 in Lung Solid Tumor Rules, 2023 Update, lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS 8246 as a specific subtype/variant for small cell carcinoma 8041/3. Should the table be updated? See Discussion.

Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3.

Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific?

The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung have been updated for 2024. The row for Small cell carcinoma 8041/3 has been deleted and new separate rows have been added for Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) 8246 and Neuroendocrine tumor, NOS (NET) 8240. This change is based on the WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, and current concepts. In addition, Table 3 now reflects that Small cell carcinoma/small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma 8041 (located in Column 3) is a subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma, NEC 8246 (Column 1). As a result, application of Rule H6 to a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8041, instead of 8246. Please note: the 2024 updates may be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2024 unless otherwise noted in the rules.

 2023
20230069

First Course Treatment/Immunotherapy--Colon: Is infliximab cancer directed treatment?  See Discussion.

While SEER*Rx does indicate infliximab should be coded as biological response modifier (BRM)/Immunotherapy, the manufacturer website for this medication indicates it is given for: Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and plaque psoriasis. In addition, SEER*Rx does not indicate which primary sites this treatment may be given for. If it is indeed cancer directed treatment, can the typical primary sites be added for clarity?

Case example: Patient is diagnosed with colorectal cancer and also has an existing diagnosis of Crohn’s disease; received surgery and FOLFOX6, as well as infliximab. There was no statement of what disease the infliximab was given to treat.  

infliximab is not cancer-directed treatment. This drug was last updated by the FDA 2/22/2023 with additional information on its approval to treat non-malignant neoplasms. To date, the FDA has not approved it for use in colon cancer. This drug was intially developed to treat colon cancer; however, found to be ineffective treating cancer.

 2023
20230029

Primary Site--Skin:  Are perianal skin primaries within 5 cm of the anus coded as perianal skin (C44.5) or anus (C21.0).  See Discussion.

ICD-O-3 tells us that perianal skin is C445 and we do not capture basal or squamous cell skin cancers in our registry. The AJCC manual stages perianal skin cancers within 5 cm of the anus with the anus chapter.  We cannot AJCC stage them as an anus if we are not capturing them as C445.  I realize we do not code a site in order to stage. We have been following the reportability rules and not capturing. Is this correct? I do not see this addressed in the new Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.

Code primary site based on the site of origin as determined by the physicians. If the physicians state the site of origin is anus, code anus; the same as with skin. As you state, squamous cell cancer of sites coded to C44 is not reportable.  The AJCC instruction for physicians to stage perianal neoplasms within 5 cm of the anus using the Anus chapter does not change cancer registry instructions for coding primary site, nor does it affect cancer registry reportability instructions.

 2023