Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250020 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Vulva: Can instructions and descriptions from registry manuals be used to determine p16 status for the human papillomavirus (HPV)-related histology codes in the Solid Tumor Rules (STR)? Does it have to state that p16 is “positive” or “over-expressed” only? See Discussion. |
The STR states that p16 can be used to code HPV-associated and HPV-independent histologies for selected sites depending on diagnosis year but contains no instructions about how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. These are often stated in various ways in our area, depending on the pathology lab and different pathologists. The SSDI Manual and SEER Coding and Staging Manual each have some instructions and code definitions for p16, including: - Code 0 for p16 expression of weak intensity or limited distribution - Code 0: p16 Negative; Nonreactive - Code 1: p16 Positive; Diffuse, Strong reactivity - IHC for p16 expression is a surrogate marker for HPV infection Example: 2023 squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva, partial vulvectomy; pathology states vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia-3, p16 immunohistochemistry demonstrates block-like expression, which supports the diagnosis. The next path report states invasive squamous cell carcinoma, stain for p16 is strong and diffuse in the lesion, supporting the above diagnosis. Neither path report specifically states "HPV-related," so are p16 "expression" and "strong and diffuse" staining enough to code the histology as 8085/3 for this case? |
Refer to the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocols to determine how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. Per the Vulva CAP Protocol, p16 positive is defined as diffuse or block-like expression. Since the pathology report states "block-like expression," code the histology as 8085/3 (invasive squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated). |
2025 |
|
|
20250015 | Solid Tumor Rules/Behavior--Brain and CNS: Why was the Behavior of solitary fibrous tumor (SFT)/hemangiopericytoma, WHO Grade 1 changed from /0 to /1 in the 2025 Solid Tumor Rules (STR) updates? See Discussion. |
In previous STR versions and the ICD-O-3.2, SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 is 8815/0 and only SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G2 was 8815/1. However, Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS, Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) was changed in the 2025 updates to indicate both G1 and G2 SFT/hemangiopericytoma are 8815/1. No date range was provided for this change in the STR and the behavior of this tumor was not updated by the standard setters in other references (i.e., ICD-O-3.2). The behavior of G1 SFT/hemangiopericytoma was not updated in the 2025 ICD-O-3.2 updates. If the ICD-O-3.2 was the source of this change, should this have been documented in the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines? However, the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines indicates, "There are no ICD-O-3 changes for 2025." Is this behavior change in 2025 Solid Tumor Rules updates an error? Should the behavior of SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 remain /0? |
For cases diagnosed 2025 and later: Assign behavior /1 for solitary fibrous tumor unless stated to be malignant. A review by the Cancer PathCHART expert neuropathologists found behavior code /0 is incorrect and both solitary fibrous tumor grade 1 and grade 2 are coded as 8815/1. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, assigns behavior as /1 and no longer recommends terms solitary fibrous tumor/hemagiopericytoma and hemagiopericytoma. The STR table is correct. Future updates to ICD-O should reflect this behavior. WHO Classification of Tumours, Central Nervous System Tumours, 5th ed. was reviewed by the CPC expert pathologists for implementation for cases diagnosed January 1, 2025. Reminder: Comparing the CPC Validity Status included in the 2024 CPC*Search to that included in the 2025 SMVL (that table that drives the edits) is incorrect. CNS Tumors were not reviewed for 2024 implementation, they were reviewed for 2025 implementation. There will be a 2025 CPC*Search and a /1 will be designated as a Valid. |
2025 |
|
|
20250017 | SEER Manual/First Course Therapy--Neoadjuvant Therapy: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect coded for bladder cancers? The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder does not provide a clear distinction between the SEER site-specific codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect for All Other Schemas, codes 2, 3, and 4, as compared to the CAP Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) categories. See Discussion. |
CAP Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder/Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) selections o No known presurgical neoadjuvant therapy o Complete response: Absence of histologically identifiable residual cancer cells and extensive fibrosis of the tumor bed after presurgical neoadjuvant therapy (TRG1) o Strong response: Predominant fibrosis of the tumor bed, with residual cancer cells occupying less than 50% of this area (TRG2) o Weak or no response: Residual cancer cells occupying ≥50% of the tumor bed or absence of regressive changes (TRG3) o Other (specify): _________________ SEER Coding Instruction for Site-Specific Codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect - Schemas: All Other Schemas selections 0 Neoadjuvant therapy not given/no known presurgical therapy 1 Complete pathological response Present: No viable cancer cells/no residual invasive carcinoma identified Residual in situ carcinoma only 2 Near complete pathological response Present: Single cells or rare small groups of invasive cancer cells 3 Partial or minimal pathological response Present: Residual invasive cancer with evident tumor regression, but more than single cells or rare small groups of cancer cells 4 Poor or no pathological response Absent: Extensive residual cancer with no evident tumor regression 6 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and surgical resection performed, response not documented or unknown Cannot be determined 7 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and planned surgical resection not performed 9 Unknown if neoadjuvant therapy performed Unknown if planned surgical procedure performed after completion of neoadjuvant therapy
Death Certificate only (DCO) |
Code Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect using the surgical pathology report only. Carefully review the pathology report gross description and comments to assist with assignment of codes. Review of neoadjuvant therapy data items is currently underway. |
2025 |
|
|
20250031 | SEER Manual/Reportability/Histology: Is severe dysplasia reportable? This is commonly listed as a synonym for high grade dysplasia. Is this term "severe dysplasia" reportable in the sites where high grade dysplasia is reportable? This is listed as a synonym, but it is not clear. See Discussion.
|
We are seeing cases on this in head and neck. The College of American Pathologists Oral Cancer Protocol is showing this as keratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ) and nonkeratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ). SINQ Question 20230047 shows it as reportable for head and neck. |
Report severe dysplasia for selected sites. Not all high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia are reportable. Refer to the list of examples in the SEER Manual Reportability Section and Appendix E, Reportable and Non-reportable Examples. Check also for other standard setters, state, and local reportability requirements. High grade dysplasia, severe dysplasia, and carcinoma in situ are equivalent terms with behavior /2. Refer to ICD-O, WHO Classification of Tumors, and the SEER Solid Tumor Rules for preferred histology terms and codes. For example, WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition, states carcinoma in situ in the oral cavity is synonymous with severe dysplasia though it is not a recommended term. |
2025 |
|
|
20250025 | EOD 2018/Regional Nodes--Liver: Are the celiac axis lymph nodes considered regional lymph nodes or distant lymph nodes for a 2025 liver primary? |
According to the AJCC CAnswer Forum (https://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/node/160948), celiac axis nodes are considered regional for the liver. However, for liver primaries, Extent of Disease (EOD) regional lymph nodes list the following as regional lymph nodes:
Based on this information, should celiac axis lymph nodes be considered as regional for liver primaries when coding EOD Regional Nodes? |
Code celiac axis lymph nodes as regional in EOD Regional Nodes for liver primaries. |
2025 |
|
|
20250030 | First Course of Therapy/Hormone Therapy--Meningioma: Should Sandostatin be coded as treatment for a Grade 1 meningioma? Patient had surgery and was somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2) positive by immunohistochemistry. |
Code Sandostatin (octreotide acetate) as hormonal therapy when given including: · SSTR 2 positive meningioma (NCCN, 2025: smaller studies support the use of targeted therapy including somatostatin) · Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (NCCN, 2025: Tumor control: antitumor effect is supported by studies for well-differentiated G1/G2 gastro-entero-pancreatic NET. In lung/thymic NET, somatostatin analogues may be considered if metastatic or SSTR positive). The SEER*Rx entry for Octreotide Acetate was updated as studies showed somatostatin analogs may shrink tumors or inhibit further growth. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250014 | Race/Spanish Surname or Origin: How are Race 1 and Spanish Surname or Origin coded for the following race/ethnicity statements: "INDIGENOUS-LATINO/A OR INDIGENOUS-LATINX" and "FIRST NATIONS"? See Discussion. |
One of the largest hospital systems in our area includes "INDIGENOUS-LATINO/A OR INDIGENOUS-LATINX" and "FIRST NATIONS" as dropdown items for patients to self-select for race/ethnicity. This hospital system serves 51 hospitals and 1,000 clinics across Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. If "INDIGENOUS-LATINO/A OR INDIGENOUS-LATINX" is the only item selected with no additional text info available, how should Race 1 and Spanish Surname or Origin be coded? If "FIRST NATIONS" is the only item selected without additional text info available, should Race 1 be coded as 03? |
Assign code 01 (White) for Race 1 when described as Indigenous-Latino/a or Indigenous-Latinx. Indigenous-Latinx is an umbrella term for Indigenous migrants to the United States from Latin America including South and Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico (for example, Maya, Mixteco, Purépecha, Taino, Zapoteco, etc.). Latin America is listed in Appendix D of the 2025 SEER Manual as White. Assign code 6 (Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS) for Spanish Surname or Origin for Indigenous-Latino/a or Indigenous-Latinx in the absence of more specific information. Code 6 description includes the statement, There is evidence, other than surname or birth surname (maiden name), that the person is Hispanic but he/she cannot be assigned to any of the categories 1-5. Assign code 03 (American Indian or Alaska Native) when described as First Nations. First Nations usually refers to Indigenous peoples for ethnic groups who are the original or earliest known inhabitants of an area. The term ‘First Nations’ can be applied to individuals, but technically refers only to those who have Indian status under Canadian law as part of a recognized community. Within Canada, the term First Nations is generally used for Indigenous peoples other than Inuit and Métis. Outside Canada, the term can refer to Indigenous Australians, U.S. tribes within the Pacific Northwest, as well as supporters of the Cascadian independence movement. |
2025 |
|
|
20250029 | EOD 2018/EOD Regional Nodes--Oropharynx: Is code 550 missing “< equal to 6 cm” in the data item EOD Regional Nodes for Oropharynx HPV-Associated, Version 9? Otherwise, bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes with extranodal extension (ENE) that are >6 cm could fit into 550 OR 650. |
Code 550 is missing “< equal to 6 cm.” In addition, code 650 should include ipsilateral lymph nodes as well. Revised codes: Code 550 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, < equal to 6 cm WITH clinical evidence of ENE Code 650 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Ipsilateral, Bilateral or Contralateral lymph nodes > 6 cm WITH or WITHOUT clinical evidence of ENE These changes will be implemented in Version 3.4 (October 2026). We apologize for the error. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250013 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Testis: How many primaries and what M Rule applies when metastatic seminoma is diagnosed greater than 40 years after a left testicular teratoma with yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with a left testis primary in the early 1980s that did not include a seminoma component per the information available. The slides were not available for review. In 2024, the patient was found to have a metastatic seminoma involving multiple pelvic lymph nodes and the prostate. The right testicular ultrasound was negative. The managing physician noted this was both a "relapsed seminoma" and a "Stage IIC seminoma." Should the new diagnosis of metastatic seminoma be accessioned as a new primary based on the histology differences? Or is this situation similar to SINQ 20160073 in which this is a single primary even though the metastases are a distinctly different histology? |
Without evidence of a new testicular tumor, record this as a single primary now with metastatic disease (seminoma). The seminoma may not have been identified in the original tumor and treatment was based on the histologies found. This allowed the seminoma to metastasize. |
2025 |
|
|
20250023 | First Course Treatment/Hormone Therapy--Multiple Myeloma: How is dexamethasone coded when given for multiple myeloma? See Discussion. |
The treatment regimen consisting of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) in SEER*Rx says not to code dexamethasone. I have a patient with multiple myeloma who received the KRd protocol in 2018 and the treatment regimen consisting of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) (not in SEER Rx) in 2025. SEER RX says to code dexamethasone when it is given for multiple myeloma but also not to code dexamethasone when given as part of the KRd regimen (which is for multiple myeloma). I can follow the KRd instructions if that is what should take priority, but then would I code dexamethasone for the KdD regimen? KdD is not in SEER*Rx and it seems counterintuitive to code it for KdD and not for KRd. |
Code dexamethasone in KRd regimen (and any other regimen for multiple myeloma containing dexamethasone) as hormonal therapy. Please note that majority of the regimens for multiple myeloma are not in SEER*Rx currently. The SEER*Rx entry for KRd regimen was updated to indicate that dexamethasone should be coded. The change was done to correct the contradiction with the SEER manual which states, "Code the hormonal agent given as part of combination chemotherapy (e.g., R-CHOP), whether it affects the cancer cells or not" and the SEER*Rx entry for dexamethasone which directs to code it for multiple myeloma. |
2025 |
An official website of the United States government
