Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240052 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland be accessioned as a reportable, behavior /1, CNS neoplasm? See Discussion. |
Imaging identified a mass involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland and excision of the mass proved “histiocytosis.” The case was extensively reviewed, and the physician notes this patient has a pituitary tumor that is a “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis,” or a “non-LCH histiocytic neoplasm.” There is no histology for histiocytosis (NOS) or non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, this does appear to be a non-malignant histiocytic neoplasm. If this were a Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm in the CNS it would be reportable. Should this non-Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm also be accessioned as a reportable CNS neoplasm? If so, how is the histology coded? |
Report this case as a pituitary tumor (8000/1) based on the information provided. This is the best choice as no specific histology code exists for this generic term “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis” in ICD-O-3.2, WHO Classification of CNS Tumors, 5th ed., and WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th ed. Be sure to double-check the behavior code of the tumor. Histiocytosis can be benign, borderline, or malignant. There was no mention of the behavior so we defaulted to uncertain behavior for this case. |
2024 |
|
|
20240010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion. |
Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy. The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment. If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected? Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added? |
Answer updated September 2025 Per consultation with a male genital and urinary subject matter expert pathologist, if a patient with a previous diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma (or a subtype variant of 8140/3) of the prostate was treated with radiation and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT, a form of hormonal therapy), the following subsequent diagnoses are NOT a new primary.
For example, a patient is diagnosed with acinar adenocarcinoma and undergoes hormone therapy. Two years later, the patient is diagnosed with adenosquamous carcinoma. The adenosquamous carcinoma should be considered treatment-related and is not a new primary. |
2024 |
|
|
20240071 | Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms/Multiple Primaries--Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Are essential thrombocytosis (ET) in 1998 and primary myelofibrosis in 2022 the same primary or is the 2022 diagnosis a new primary? See Discussion.
|
Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea. 11-17-2022 Blood smear: CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3 (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations). The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing: A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary. |
Abstract two separate primaries, ET (9962/3) and primary myelofibrosis (9961/3) using the current Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual and Database (DB), Rule M15, use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator. Also refer to the example in Rule M15. In 1998, though the ET was not reportable (9962/1), the patient was treated with chemotherapy as a malignant neoplasm (9962/3). The Calculator instructs us to code separate primaries for these two histologies. ET may evolve into a secondary myelofibrosis, also known as post-essential thrombocythemia-myelofibrosis (post-ET MF). The diagnosis must be stated as post-ET MF; this would be a single primary. |
2024 |
|
|
20240021 | Solid Tumor Rules/Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “high grade dysplasia” (not specified to be squamous or glandular) reportable for esophagus, stomach, and small intestine for cases diagnosed beginning in 2024? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.” If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2? |
Report these high grade dysplasia of the following organs as stated below. Stomach: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Stomach Histologies and as described in the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition. Small intestine and Esophagus: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade, using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites Histology Rules, Rule H4/H26. The following note is listed for both of these rules. Note: This list may not include all reportable neoplasms for 8148/2. See SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual or STORE manual for reportable neoplasms The Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Esophagus Histologies and Table 7: Small Intestine and Ampulla of Vater Histologies will be updated to reflect this code as time permits. |
2024 |
|
|
20240002 | First Course Treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should treatment data items be coded for a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and symptomatic anemia treated with Reblozyl (Luspatercept)? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has a 04/2023 diagnosis of symptomatic anemia not responsive to Retacrit. Further testing includes diagnostic bone marrow biopsy 10/2023 proving MDS with low blasts and SF3B1 mutation, treated with Relozyl (Luspatercept). There is no SEER*Rx listing for Reblozyl or Luspatercept. Per web search, Luspatercept, sold under the brand name Reblozyl, is a medication used for the treatment of anemia in beta thalassemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Is this non-cancer directed treatment since it is given to address the anemia rather than the MDS? If cancer-directed treatment, how should it be coded? |
Do not code Reblozyl (luspatercept) as treatment. Luspatercept is an ancillary drug approved to treat anemia associated with MDS but not the malignancy. |
2024 |
|
|
20240078 | Reportability/Histology--Lung: Are adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions on lung imaging reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
For example, a chest computed tomography showed multiple subsolid and ground glass pulmonary nodules measuring up to 6 mm; findings favored to reflect adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions. A literature search seems to indicate that adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions include atypical adenomatous hyperplasia through invasive adenocarcinomas. |
Do not report this case of "adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions" based on the information provided in the absence of a more specific diagnosis. Do not report until/unless a definitive diagnosis of malignancy is made. "Adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion" covers a continuum of lung neoplasms from preinvasive lesions (atypical adenomatous hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ) to invasive lesions (minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and invasive adenocarcinoma). Should additional information become available, report the case and assign the histology code if a more specific histology is confirmed later. Use text fields to record the details.
|
2024 |
|
|
20240024 | Reportability/Histology: Is angiomyxoma (this includes borderline or behavior code /1 cases) of the soft tissue reportable? Can you provide us with coding guidelines for angiomyxoma for when its reportable or not reportable? |
Do not report angiomyxoma. ICD-O-3.2 assigns 8841/0 to this benign tumor. This includes superficial and deep (aggressive) angiomyxoma. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240025 | Update to the current manual/Reportability--Esophagus: Is high grade dysplasia of the esophagus reportable? The 2024 Seer Program Manual, page 21, has an example that states it is not reportable. See Discussion. |
Example 4: Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false. Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries? |
High grade dysplasia of the esophagus is reportable. The example will be corrected in the next edition of the SEER manual. |
2024 |
|
|
20240017 | EOD/Prostate Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is a pathology report from a prostate biopsy/transurethral resection of the prostate that states "with intraductal spread" extraprostatic/extracapsular extension or localized? |
Code as a localized, intracapsular tumor as ductal carcinoma in situ does not invade. Intraductal spread is describing the neoplasm spreading through the acinar/ductal cells in the prostate specimen. It is an in-situ type of spread and not invasive but almost always presents with an invasive tumor. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240041 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an optic nerve meningioma reportable if stated to arise in the “intraorbital segment” of the optic nerve meninges? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed on imaging with enhancement along the right optic nerve intraorbital segment, displacing the optic nerve, most consistent with optic nerve sheath meningioma. Extracranial meningiomas are rare, however SINQ 20230052 does contain an exception for reportability in a different head and neck site because it is not an intracranial location. It is unclear if this portion of the meninges surrounding the intraorbital optic nerve is still “intracranial” and thus reportable. |
Report optic nerve sheath meningioma arising in the intraorbital segment. The optic nerve contains four segments, of which intraorbital is one. The WHO Classification of Eye Tumors, 4th edition, defines meningioma as a neoplasm originating from the meningothelial cells of the optic nerve leptomeninges. According to the Table 3 of the Non-malignant Solid Tumor Rules, all portions of the optic are reportable and meningiomas arising in the dura/meninges of an intracranial nerve are coded to cerebral meninges C700. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
